Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2010:624
Date: 2010-10-21
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Social Policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 1. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (Directive 2000/34 of the European Parliament and of the Council; Council Directive 93/104, Art. 17(3)) 2. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directives 93/104 and 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (Directives 2000/34 and 2003/88 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Arts 17 and 18; Council Directive 93/104, Art. 17) 3. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directives 93/104 and 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (Directives 2000/34 and 2003/88 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Arts 17 and 18; Council Directive 93/104, Art. 17) 1. Article 17(3) of Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, in both its original version and in the version amended by Directive 2000/34, 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. (see para. 36, operative part 1) 2. The optional derogations provided for in Article 17 of Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, in both its original version and in the version amended by Directive 2000/34, and, where relevant, Articles 17 and/or 18 of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, may not be relied on against individuals. Moreover, those provisions may not be interpreted as permitting directly or precluding the application of collective agreements derogating from the rules transposing Article 5 of the Directive, for whether such agreements apply is a matter for domestic law. (see paras 47, 53-54, 59, operative part 2) 3. The derogations available under Article 17 of Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, in both its original version and in the version amended by Directive 2000/34, and, where relevant, Articles 17 and/or 18 of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, being optional, European Union law does not require Member States to implement them in domestic law. In order to exercise the option provided for by those provisions to derogate, in certain circumstances, from the requirements laid down in, inter alia, Article 5 of those directives, the Member States are required to make a choice to rely on it. For that purpose, it is for the Member States to choose the normative technique which they regard as the most appropriate, given that, under the derogating provisions in question themselves, such derogations can be made, inter alia, by collective agreements or agreements concluded by both sides of industry. Where European Union law gives to Member States the option to derogate from certain provisions of a directive, those States are required to exercise their discretion in a manner consistent with general principles of European Union law, which include the principle of legal certainty. To that end, provisions which permit optional derogations from the rules laid down by a directive must be implemented with the requisite precision and clarity necessary to satisfy the requirements flowing from that principle. (see paras 51-52, 55)