# C_2010221EN.01002101.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-León (Spain) lodged on 25 May 2010 — Pedro Antonio Macedo Lozano v Gerardo García, S.L.

(Case C-261/10)

()

2010/C 221/34

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-León

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pedro Antonio Macedo Lozano

Applicant:

Defendant: Gerardo García, S.L.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 3, 5(2), 6 and 7 of Directive 2003/10/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a company in which the workers’ daily noise exposure level is above 85 dbA (measured without taking account of the effect of hearing protectors) fulfils the obligations to take preventive measures laid down in that Directive in respect of physical working conditions by providing those workers with hearing protectors so that, with the level of attenuation provided by those protectors, the workers’ daily noise exposure level is reduced to less than 80 dbA? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 3, 5(2), 6 and 7 of Directive 2003/10/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a company in which the workers’ daily noise exposure level is above 85 dbA (measured without taking account of the effect of hearing protectors) fulfils the obligations to take preventive measures laid down in that Directive in respect of physical working conditions by providing those workers with hearing protectors so that, with the level of attenuation provided by those protectors, the workers’ daily noise exposure level is reduced to less than 80 dbA?

1

| 2. | Is Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/10/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘programme of technical and/or organisational measures’ which must be adopted by a company in which the workers’ daily noise exposure level is above 85 dbA (measured without taking account of the effect of hearing protectors) is intended to reduce the noise exposure level to below 85 dbA? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 5(2) of Directive 2003/10/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘programme of technical and/or organisational measures’ which must be adopted by a company in which the workers’ daily noise exposure level is above 85 dbA (measured without taking account of the effect of hearing protectors) is intended to reduce the noise exposure level to below 85 dbA?

| 3. | If question 1 is answered in the negative, does Directive 2003/10/EC preclude a national rule or judicial approach which exempts a company from making a monetary payment, which in principle it must pay to workers affected by daily noise exposure levels of over 85 dbA, because the company has provided those workers with hearing protectors whose attenuating effect causes daily exposure to remain under 80 dbA? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If question 1 is answered in the negative, does Directive 2003/10/EC preclude a national rule or judicial approach which exempts a company from making a monetary payment, which in principle it must pay to workers affected by daily noise exposure levels of over 85 dbA, because the company has provided those workers with hearing protectors whose attenuating effect causes daily exposure to remain under 80 dbA?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (noise) (Seventeenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 2003 L 42, p. 38).

1

---