# C_2010346EN.01001501.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino (Italy)) — Antonio Accardo and Others v Comune di Torino

(Case C-227/09) (1)

1

(Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Municipal police officers - Directive 93/104/EC - Directive 93/104/EC as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC - Directive 2003/88/EC - Articles 5, 17 and 18 - Maximum weekly working time - Collective agreements or agreements concluded between the two sides of industry at national or regional level - Derogations relating to deferred weekly rest periods and compensatory rest - Direct effect - Interpretation in conformity with European Union law)

2010/C 346/24

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Antonino Accardo, Viola Acella, Antonio Acuto, Domenico Ambrisi, Paolo Battaglino, Riccardo Bevilacqua, Fabrizio Bolla, Daniela Bottazzi, Roberto Brossa, Luigi Calabro′, Roberto Cammardella, Michelangelo Capaldi, Giorgio Castellaro, Davide Cauda, Tatiana Chiampo, Alessia Ciaravino, Alessandro Cicero, Paolo Curtabbi, Paolo Dabbene, Mauro D'Angelo, Giancarlo Destefanis, Mario Di Brita, Bianca Di Capua, Michele Di Chio, Marina Ferrero, Gino Forlani, Giovanni Galvagno, Sonia Genisio, Laura Dora Genovese, Sonia Gili, Maria Gualtieri, Gaetano La Spina, Maurizio Loggia, Giovanni Lucchetta, Sandra Magoga, Manuela Manfredi, Fabrizio Maschio, Sonia Mignone, Daniela Minissale, Domenico Mondello, Veronnica Mossa, Plinio Paduano, Barbaro Pallavidino, Monica Palumbo, Michele Paschetto, Frederica, Peinetti, Nadia Pizzimenti, Gianluca Ponzo, Enrico Pozzato, Gaetano Puccio, Danilo Ranzani, Pergianni Risso, Luisa Rossi, Paola Sabia, Renzo Sangiano, Davide Scagno, Paola Settia, Raffaella Sottoriva, Rossana Trancuccio, Fulvia Varotto, Giampiero Zucca, Fabrizio Lacognata, Guido Mandia, Luigi Rigon, Daniele Sgavetti

Applicants:

Defendant: Comune di Torino

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Torino — Interpretation of Articles 5, 17 and 18 of Council Directive 93/104/CE of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (JO 1993 L 307, p. 18) — Derogations relating to deferred weekly rest periods and compensatory rest — Applicability to members of the municipal police force

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 17(3) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time, in both its original version and in the version amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000, is independent in scope in relation to Article 17(2) thereof, so that the fact that a profession is not listed in Article 17(2) does not mean that it may not be covered by the derogation provided for in Article 17(3) in either of those versions of Directive 93/104. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 17(3) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time, in both its original version and in the version amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000, is independent in scope in relation to Article 17(2) thereof, so that the fact that a profession is not listed in Article 17(2) does not mean that it may not be covered by the derogation provided for in Article 17(3) in either of those versions of Directive 93/104.

| 2. | In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the optional derogations provided for in Article 17 of Directive 93/104 and Directive 93/104 as amended by Directive 2000/34 and, where relevant, Articles 17 and/or 18 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time, cannot be relied on against individuals such as the applicants in the main proceedings. Moreover, those provisions cannot be interpreted as permitting or precluding the application of collective agreements such as those at issue in the main proceedings, since whether such agreements apply is a matter for domestic law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the optional derogations provided for in Article 17 of Directive 93/104 and Directive 93/104 as amended by Directive 2000/34 and, where relevant, Articles 17 and/or 18 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time, cannot be relied on against individuals such as the applicants in the main proceedings. Moreover, those provisions cannot be interpreted as permitting or precluding the application of collective agreements such as those at issue in the main proceedings, since whether such agreements apply is a matter for domestic law.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.

1

---