Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:225
Date: 2026-03-19
Language of the case: Slovak

summary, the general criterion is the ‘little freedom to manage the time during which [the worker’s] professional services are not required’. 19 See, also, judgment in A firefighter’s period of stand-by time (paragraphs 41 and 42), and judgment of 11 November 2021, Dublin City Council (C‑214/20, EU:C:2021:909, paragraphs 43 to 45 and 48). 20 Emphasis added. Ireland underlines the financial impact of such an interpretation. However, it is for each Member State to decide whether it intends to take more favourable measures (see point 18 of this Opinion). In addition, the way in which workers are remunerated for periods of stand-by time is not covered by Directive 2003/88 but by the relevant provisions of national law. That does not preclude a law that, as regards periods of stand-by time which should be entirely regarded as not being covered by the concept of ‘working time’ for the purposes of the application of that directive, nevertheless provides for the payment to the worker concerned of a sum intended to compensate him or her for the inconvenience that those periods of stand-by time cause to the organisation of his or her time and to the pursuit of his or her own interests. See judgment in A firefighter’s period of stand-by time (paragraphs 57 and 58 and the case-law cited). 21 See point 23 of this Opinion. 22 See judgment in Fuß (paragraphs 49 and 50). 23 See judgment in Fuß (paragraphs 52 and 53 and the case-law cited). 24 See also judgment of 1 August 2025, Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and Others (C‑97/24, EU:C:2025:594, paragraph 30). 25 See point 7 of this Opinion. 26 After consultation, on the basis of information from the Slovak Government, of the judgment of the referring court of 20 December 2023 (see point 11 of this Opinion), available at: https://www.justice.gov.sk/sudy-a-rozhodnutia/sudy/sud_141/rozhodnutia/ae74e401-6f01-447a-afff-174757c1bc7a:d7df1744-bda4-4193-8022-29e14a926b6d/ (paragraphs 4 and 17), and the order of the Krajský súd v Banskej Bystrici (Regional Court, Banská Bystrica) of 30 May 2024 (see point 13 of this Opinion), available at: https://www.justice.gov.sk/sudy-a-rozhodnutia/sudy/sud_138/rozhodnutia/d18ccc21-de3d-4606-9661-d5ab2077894d:80ac45f7-45b5-49d5-aed7-cc4094dbaba7 (paragraph 7.2), the information given by the referring court in paragraph 8 of the request for a preliminary ruling, which appears to be different from that in paragraph 13 of that request, can be confirmed. 27 See judgment in Fuß (paragraph 57). 28 See point 12 of this Opinion. 29 See point 20 of this Opinion. 30 See judgment in Fuß (paragraphs 44, 96 and 98). For a reminder of that finding in the case of an action for damages against an employer who infringed the national rules implementing EU law on the protection of workers assigned to night work, see judgment of 20 June 2024, Artemis security (C‑367/23, EU:C:2024:529, paragraphs 26 and 27). 31 Judgment in Fuß (paragraph 62). See, also, the case-law cited. See, also, judgment of 28 June 2022, Commission v Spain (Breach of EU law by the legislature) (C‑278/20, EU:C:2022:503, paragraphs 176 and 184). 32 Judgment in Fuß (paragraph 92). See, also, the case-law cited. Emphasis added. 33 Judgment in Fuß (paragraph 93). See, also, the case-law cited. Emphasis added. 34 Judgment in Fuß (paragraph 94). Emphasis added. 35 See judgment in Fuß (paragraph 23). 36 See judgment in Fuß (paragraph 30, third question). 37 See points 10 and 13 of this Opinion. 38 The Slovak Government cites judgment of 21 March 2023, Mercedes-Benz Group (Liability of manufacturers of vehicles fitted with defeat devices) (C‑100/21, EU:C:2023:229, paragraph 94). 39 The Slovak Government cites, by analogy, judgment of 4 October 2024, Agentsia po vpisvaniyata (C‑200/23, EU:C:2024:827, paragraph 153). 40 See, as regards compensation for non-material damage alleged against a data controller, judgment of 4 October 2024, Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs (C‑507/23, EU:C:2024:854, paragraph 37). The Court concluded that Article 82(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1), must be interpreted as meaning that the making of an apology may constitute sufficient compensation for non-material damage on the basis of that provision, inter alia where it is impossible to restore the situation that existed prior to the occurrence of that damage, provided that that form of redress is such as to compensate in full the damage suffered by the data subject. 41 The referring court states that, ‘in the view of the court of appeal, [M.R.] in fact characterised his claim as one arising from long-standing interference in his personal rights. He claimed compensation for non-material damage, which he quantified by reference to the number of hours of on-call duty that he actually performed and which were not included in his working time in violation of Articles 2(1) and 6(b) of the directive’. Emphasis added. 42 See judgment in Fuß (paragraph 98).