# C_2023216EN.01001101.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2023 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Kula — Bulgaria) — OP (C-529/21), MN (C-530/21), KL (C-531/21), IJ (C-532/21), GH (C-533/21), EF (C-534/21), CD (C-535/21), AB (C-536/21), AB (C-732/21), BC (C-733/21), CD (C-734/21), DE (C-735/21), EF (C-736/21), FG (C-737/21), GH (C-738/21) v Glavna direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto’ kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

(Joined Cases C-529/21 to C-536/21 and C-732/21 to C-738/21, (1) Glavna direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto’ (Night work) and Others)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 1(3) - Scope - Article 8 - Article 12 - Health and safety of night workers at work - Level of protection for night workers appropriate to the nature of their work - Directive 89/391/EEC - Article 2 - Public sector workers and private sector workers - Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Equal treatment)

(2023/C 216/14)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad — Kula

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: OP (C-529/21), MN (C-530/21), KL (C-531/21), IJ (C-532/21), GH (C-533/21), EF (C-534/21), CD (C-535/21), AB (C-536/21), AB (C-732/21), BC (C-733/21), CD (C-734/21), DE (C-735/21), EF (C-736/21), FG (C-737/21), GH (C-738/21)

Defendant: Glavna direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zashtita na naselenieto’ kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

Operative part of the judgment

| 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 2 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work,
  must be interpreted as meaning that Directive 2003/88 applies to public sector workers, such as firefighters, who are considered to be night workers, in so far as those workers carry out their activities under normal circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

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 2 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work,

must be interpreted as meaning that Directive 2003/88 applies to public sector workers, such as firefighters, who are considered to be night workers, in so far as those workers carry out their activities under normal circumstances.

| 2. | Article 12 of Directive 2003/88, read in the light of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
  must be interpreted as not precluding the normal length of night work fixed at seven hours in the legislation of a Member State for workers in the private sector from not applying to public sector workers, such as firefighters, if, in so far as the categories of workers concerned are in a comparable situation, that difference in treatment is based on an objective and reasonable criterion, that is, if the difference relates to a legally permitted aim pursued by that legislation, and it is proportionate to that aim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 12 of Directive 2003/88, read in the light of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as not precluding the normal length of night work fixed at seven hours in the legislation of a Member State for workers in the private sector from not applying to public sector workers, such as firefighters, if, in so far as the categories of workers concerned are in a comparable situation, that difference in treatment is based on an objective and reasonable criterion, that is, if the difference relates to a legally permitted aim pursued by that legislation, and it is proportionate to that aim.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.

---