CJEU Case C-373/24 / Judgment

NI v Republika Hrvatska
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Sixth Chamber)
Typ
Decision
Decision date
30/10/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2025:842
  • CJEU Case C-373/24 / Judgment

    key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 2003/88/EC – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Article 1(3) – Article 2(1) – Concept of ‘working time’ – Activities of public prosecutors – Directive 89/391/EEC – Article 2(2) – Characteristics peculiar to certain specific public service activities – Periods of time on stand-by at the workplace and periods of time on stand-by according to a stand-by system carried out outside of the workplace – Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Fair and just working conditions

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby rules:

    1. Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, read in conjunction with Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that public prosecutors fall within the scope of that directive.

       

    2. Article 2 of Council Directive 89/391/ECC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, to which Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88 refers, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which excludes the activity of public prosecutors from the scope of Directive 2003/88, in so far as that activity, where it is carried out in normal circumstances, may be subject to the planning of working time in a way that respects the requirements imposed by Directive 2003/88.

       

    3. Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that a period of time on stand-by carried out outside of normal working time by public prosecutors, which requires the mandatory presence of those prosecutors at the workplace, or a period of time on stand-by according to a stand-by system, which requires the public prosecutor to be present at his or her home, must be classified as ‘working time’, within the meaning of Article 2, in so far as, during those periods of time on stand-by, the constraints imposed on those public prosecutors are such that they objectively and very significantly affect the ability, for those public prosecutors, freely to manage, during those periods, the time during which their professional services are not required and to use that time to pursue their own interests.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    22. By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88, read in conjunction with Article 31 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that public prosecutors fall within the scope of that directive.

    ...

    24.  It follows that, for the purposes of applying Directive 2003/88, and in the light of Article 31 of the Charter, the concept of ‘worker’, which may not be interpreted differently according to the law of Member States, has an autonomous meaning specific to EU law (judgments of 14 October 2010, Union syndicale Solidaires Isère, C‑428/09, EU:C:2010:612, paragraph 28; of 21 February 2018, Matzak, C‑518/15, EU:C:2018:82, paragraph 28; and of 16 July 2020, Governo della Repubblica italiana (Status of Italian magistrates), C‑658/18, EU:C:2020:572, paragraphs 88 and 89).

    ...

    35. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88, read in conjunction with Article 31 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that public prosecutors fall within the scope of that directive.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)