# C_2018134EN.01000201.xml

| 16.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Ville de Nivelles v Rudy Matzak

(Case C-518/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/88/EC - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Article 2 - Concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest periods’ - Article 17 - Derogations - Firefighters - Stand-by times - Stand-by times at home))

(2018/C 134/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ville de Nivelles

Applicant:

Defendant: Rudy Matzak

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 17(3)(c)(iii) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may not derogate, with regard to certain categories of firefighters recruited by the public fire services, from all the obligations arising from the provisions of that directive, including Article 2 thereof, which defines, in particular, the concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest periods’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 17(3)(c)(iii) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may not derogate, with regard to certain categories of firefighters recruited by the public fire services, from all the obligations arising from the provisions of that directive, including Article 2 thereof, which defines, in particular, the concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest periods’.

| 2. | Article 15 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not permitting Member States to maintain or adopt a less restrictive definition of the concept of ‘working time’ than that laid down in Article 2 of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 15 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not permitting Member States to maintain or adopt a less restrictive definition of the concept of ‘working time’ than that laid down in Article 2 of that directive.

| 3. | Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to determine the remuneration of periods of stand-by time such as those at issue in the main proceedings according to the prior classification of those periods as ‘working time’ or ‘rest period’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to determine the remuneration of periods of stand-by time such as those at issue in the main proceedings according to the prior classification of those periods as ‘working time’ or ‘rest period’.

| 4. | Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that stand-by time which a worker spends at home with the duty to respond to calls from his employer within 8 minutes, very significantly restricting the opportunities for other activities, must be regarded as ‘working time’. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that stand-by time which a worker spends at home with the duty to respond to calls from his employer within 8 minutes, very significantly restricting the opportunities for other activities, must be regarded as ‘working time’.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.

1

---