Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Iași (Romania) lodged on 14 November 2023 – JU v Spitalul Clinic de Pneumoftiziologie Iași

(Case C-678/23, Spitalul Clinic de Pneumoftiziologie Iaşi)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Iași

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant (applicant at first instance): JU

Respondent (defendant at first instance): Spitalul Clinic de Pneumoftiziologie Iași

Questions referred

Do Article 9 and Article 11(6) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work ¹ preclude mandatory national legislation and practice under which workers do not have the right to bring an action directly before the authority responsible for safety and health protection at work if they consider that the measures taken and the means employed by the employer are inadequate for the purposes of ensuring safety and health at work and cannot bring an action before the courts if they consider that the employers have not fulfilled their obligations with regard to classification as workplaces [exposing workers to] particular working conditions, either for the period of time already worked or for the future period of the employment relationship?

Does Article 11(6) of Directive 89/391 have vertical direct effect and, in conjunction with Article 31(1) and the Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, does that article recognise the right of workers to judicial protection in the event of failure by those legally responsible to fulfil their obligations under the legislation?

____________

¹ Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).