mutual trust, rule of law

Use of the Preliminary Reference Procedure

Miskolci Törvényszék

Miskolc Regional Court

C-477/21

2 March 2023

ECLI:EU:C:2023:140

no

The Miskolc Regional Court referred questions to the CJEU in the case of a train driver who sought the payment of unpaid wages by claiming that he was also entitled to a daily rest period before his weekly rest period and period of leave. The questions concerned the proper interpretation of the relationship between daily and weekly rest periods.

the protection of the safety and health of workers, daily and weekly rest periods, organisation of working time

no

no

Act I of 2012 on the Labour Code; Act CLXXXIII of 2005 on Rail Transport

The applicant is a train driver at MÁV-START and subjected to a collective agreement. According to this contract, he is employed in a monthly working time roster, and entitled to a 12-hour daily rest period between two periods of work, which was not provided before taking a weekly rest period or leave. He filed a lawsuit with the Miskolc Regional Court to claim his unpaid wages covering the daily rest period immediately before his weekly rest period and period of leave. The employer, MÁV-START argued that given the purpose of the daily rest period, it should be provided only between two successive working periods. The referring court noted that the collective agreement provides more favourable conditions for the applicant in this regard than the Directive and the Hungarian Labour Code, eg. by granting 12 hours for daily rest compared to the minimum of 11 hours determined by Directive 2003/88. The Miskolc Regional Court highlighted that the Hungarian translation of the Directive differs from other language versions in terms of determining the weekly rest period, so it is open to question whether the 11-hour daily rest period is included in the weekly rest period, which is indicated by the Hungarian version, or it should be provided beyond the weekly rest period determined by the laws. Also, the Hungarian Labour Code makes no references to the daily rest period when defining the weekly one. Furthermore, it is a question for the referring court if the daily rest period must be provided in case the next working period starts days after the previous working period ends. The referring court submitted 5 questions to the CJEU.

(1) Regarding the first and second questions, the CJEU noted that the Directive give concrete expression to Article 31(2) of the Charter which guarantees a fundamental right and therefore must be interpreted in light of that. It excludes any restrictive interpretation to the detriment of the workers. National laws should ensure the effective enjoyment of these rights considering the protection of workers' life and working conditions, and safety and health. The CJEU held that employees should be considered the weaker party in an employment relationship, so emplyees must be prevented from restricting these rights. The CJEU found that the right to a daily and weekly rest period constitutes two separate individual rights, serving different purposes, and Member States should provide for the effective protection of each. As a result, Article 5 of the Directive which defines the term "weekly rest period" must be interpreted as meaning that the daily rest in Article 3 of this Directive does not form part of the weekly rest period but is added to it. (2) Regarding the third question, the CJEU held that daily and weekly rest periods determined by the Directive are autonomous concepts of EU law, which must be interpreted uniformly within the EU, irrespective of the national concepts. Even though the collective agreement provides a more favourable scheme for the applicant regarding the weekly rest period than what is envisaged by the Directive, workers cannot be deprived of enjoying the right to a daily rest period determined by the Directive. As a result, to ensure the right to daily rest periods, it should be guaranteed irrespective of the duration of the weekly rest period in the national legislation. (3) Regarding the fourth and fifth questions, the CJEU reiterated that the purpose of the daily rest period is to allow that workers to leave behind their working environment in order to relax and recover from the fatigue of their activity, immediately after the end of their working time. This entails that Article 3 of the Directive interpreted in conjuctiion of Article 31(2) of the Charter guarantees the right of the workers to a daily rest period before the weekly rest period.

The Charter was used to provide guidance for interpreting and clarifying the content of the Directive.

no

consistent interpretation

no

no

The Miskolc Regional Court referred questions to the CJEU to seek a consistent interpretation of national law with EU law and its minimum stadards regarding fundamental rights.

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

Ágnes Kovács, Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE)