# C_2016392EN.01000701.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 27 July 2016 — David Fernando Leal da Fonseca v Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA

(Case C-415/16)

(2016/C 392/09)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: David Fernando Leal da Fonseca

Applicant:

Defendant: Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação, SA

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In the light of Article 5 of Directive 93/104/EC (1) of 23 November 1993, and Directive 2003/88/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, as well as Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the case of workers engaged in shift work with rotating rest periods, in an establishment open every day of the week but which does not have continuous 24-hour productive periods, must the compulsory rest day that a worker is entitled to be granted in each period of seven days, that is, at the latest on the seventh day following six consecutive working days? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the light of Article 5 of Directive 93/104/EC (1) of 23 November 1993, and Directive 2003/88/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, as well as Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the case of workers engaged in shift work with rotating rest periods, in an establishment open every day of the week but which does not have continuous 24-hour productive periods, must the compulsory rest day that a worker is entitled to be granted in each period of seven days, that is, at the latest on the seventh day following six consecutive working days?

1

2

| 2. | Do those directives and provisions preclude an interpretation to the effect that, in relation to those workers, the employer is free to choose the days on which it grants a worker, for each week, the rest days to which he is entitled, so that the worker may be required, without overtime pay, to work for up to ten consecutive days? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do those directives and provisions preclude an interpretation to the effect that, in relation to those workers, the employer is free to choose the days on which it grants a worker, for each week, the rest days to which he is entitled, so that the worker may be required, without overtime pay, to work for up to ten consecutive days?

| 3. | Do those directives and provisions preclude an interpretation to the effect that the uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours may be granted on any of the calendar days in a given period of seven calendar days, and the subsequent uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours (to which are added the 11 hours of daily rest) may also be granted on any of the calendar days in the period of seven calendar days immediately following the period mentioned above? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do those directives and provisions preclude an interpretation to the effect that the uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours may be granted on any of the calendar days in a given period of seven calendar days, and the subsequent uninterrupted rest period of 24 hours (to which are added the 11 hours of daily rest) may also be granted on any of the calendar days in the period of seven calendar days immediately following the period mentioned above?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18).

1

(2)  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 (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

2

---