# C_2011186EN.01000901.xml

| 25.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/9

---

Order of the Court of 4 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Dâmbovița — Romania) — Nicușor Grigore v Regia Națională a Pădurilor Romsilva — Direcția Silvică București

(Case C-258/10) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Notion of ‘working time’ - ‘Notion ofmaximum weekly working time’ - Forest ranger subject, under the terms of his employment contract and the applicable collective agreement, to flexible working time of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week - National legislation holding him liable for any damage suffered in the section of forest under his control - Classification - Effect of overtime on the remuneration and financial compensation of the person concerned)

2011/C 186/15

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Dâmbovița (Romania)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nicușor Grigore

Applicant:

Defendant: Regia Națională a Pădurilor Romsilva — Direcția Silvică București

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Dâmbovița — Interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 6 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 (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Notion of ‘working time’ — National legislation holding a forest ranger liable for any damage suffered in the section of forest under his control, despite the terms of his employment contract making him subject to a maximum daily working time of eight hours — Notion of ‘maximum weekly working time’ — Actual weekly working time exceeding the lawful maximum weekly working time — Effect of overtime on the remuneration and financial compensation of the person concerned

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Article 2(1) 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 a period during which a forest ranger, whose daily working time, as stipulated in his employment contract, is eight hours, is required to carry out wardenship duties in a section of forest, making him liable to disciplinary action, the payment of compensation and civil or criminal sanctions, as the case may be, for any damage ascertained in the area under his control, regardless of the time when the damage occurs, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of that provision only if the nature and extent of the wardenship obligation on that forest ranger and the system of liability applicable to him require his physical presence at the place of work and if, during that period, he must be available to his employer. It is for the national court to undertake the factual and legal checks necessary, in particular as regards the applicable national law, in order to assess whether that is the situation in the matter before it. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2(1) 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 a period during which a forest ranger, whose daily working time, as stipulated in his employment contract, is eight hours, is required to carry out wardenship duties in a section of forest, making him liable to disciplinary action, the payment of compensation and civil or criminal sanctions, as the case may be, for any damage ascertained in the area under his control, regardless of the time when the damage occurs, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of that provision only if the nature and extent of the wardenship obligation on that forest ranger and the system of liability applicable to him require his physical presence at the place of work and if, during that period, he must be available to his employer. It is for the national court to undertake the factual and legal checks necessary, in particular as regards the applicable national law, in order to assess whether that is the situation in the matter before it.

| 2. | The classification of a period of ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88 does not depend on the provision of staff accommodation within the section of forest under the control of the forest ranger concerned provided that that provision does not imply that he is required to be physically present in the place determined by the employer and available there to his employer in order to be able to take appropriate action if necessary. It is for the national court to undertake the checks necessary in order to assess whether that is the situation in the matter before it. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The classification of a period of ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88 does not depend on the provision of staff accommodation within the section of forest under the control of the forest ranger concerned provided that that provision does not imply that he is required to be physically present in the place determined by the employer and available there to his employer in order to be able to take appropriate action if necessary. It is for the national court to undertake the checks necessary in order to assess whether that is the situation in the matter before it.

| 3. | Article 6 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding, in principle, a situation in which, although the employment contract of a forest ranger stipulates that the maximum working time is 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week, in reality he carries out, by virtue of legal obligations, wardenship duties in the section of forest under his control, either permanently or so as to exceed the maximum weekly working time laid down in that article. It is for the national court to undertake the checks necessary in order to assess whether that is the situation in the matter before it and, if so, to ascertain whether the conditions laid down in Article 17(1) of Directive 2003/88 or in Article 22(1) thereof relating to the ability to derogate from Article 6 have been complied with in the case in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 6 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding, in principle, a situation in which, although the employment contract of a forest ranger stipulates that the maximum working time is 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week, in reality he carries out, by virtue of legal obligations, wardenship duties in the section of forest under his control, either permanently or so as to exceed the maximum weekly working time laid down in that article. It is for the national court to undertake the checks necessary in order to assess whether that is the situation in the matter before it and, if so, to ascertain whether the conditions laid down in Article 17(1) of Directive 2003/88 or in Article 22(1) thereof relating to the ability to derogate from Article 6 have been complied with in the case in the main proceedings.

| 4. | Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that the employer’s obligation to pay salaries and benefits which may be treated as salary in respect of the period during which the forest ranger is required to carry out wardenship duties in the section of forest under his control does not fall within the scope of that directive, but under that of the relevant provisions of the national law. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that the employer’s obligation to pay salaries and benefits which may be treated as salary in respect of the period during which the forest ranger is required to carry out wardenship duties in the section of forest under his control does not fall within the scope of that directive, but under that of the relevant provisions of the national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.

1

---