Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:1050
Date: 2024-12-19
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Approximation of laws;Social Policy;Free movement of workers;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Summary C-531/23 – 1 
Case C-531/23 [Loredas] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
5 July 2023 
Referring court: 
Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
20 June 2023 
Appellant: 
HJ 
Respondents: 
US 
MU 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Working time – 
Time recording – Special rules for domestic workers 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Request for a preliminary ruling on validity – Article 267 TFEU – Compatibility 
of a national provision with EU law – Discrimination on grounds of sex 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-531/23 
 
2  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
‘Must Articles 3, 5, 6, 16, 17, 17(4)(b), 19 and 22 of Directive 2003/88 on the 
organisation of working time, Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
of the European Union, read in the light of the EU case-law (judgment of the 
Court of Justice of 14 May 2019, C-55/18), Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 3(2) of the EC Treaty, 
Articles 1 and 4 of Directive 2010/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 7 July 2010 on the application of the principle of equal treatment 
between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity, 
Articles 1, 4 and 5 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal 
opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment 
and occupation, and Articles 2 and 3 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 
27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in 
employment and occupation, also read in the light of the EU case-law (judgment 
of the Court of Justice of 2[4] February 202[2], C-389/20), be interpreted as 
precluding a legislative provision such as Article 9(3) of Real Decreto (Royal 
Decree) 1620/2011, which exempts an employer from the obligation to keep a 
record of a worker’s working time?’ 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
TFEU: Article 267 
TEU: Articles 2 and 3 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Articles 20, 21 and 31(2) 
Directive 2006/54/EC: Article 14 
Directive 2000/78/EC: Articles 2 and 3 
Directive 2003/88/EC: Articles 3, 5 and 6 
Judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-55/18, paragraphs 44 to 49, and Case 
C-389/20 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Workers’ Statute) (Real Decreto Legislativo (Royal 
Legislative Decree) 2/2015) (‘the ET’): Articles 34 and 35(5) 
Real Decreto (Royal Decree) 1620/2011: Article 9 
Real Decreto Ley (Royal Decree Law) 8/2019 
LOREDAS 
 
3 
Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Social (Law governing the social courts): 
Article 94 
Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on civil procedure): Article 217 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 31 March 2021, the appellant worker, Ms HJ, brought an action against her 
dismissal and a claim for payment against the natural persons Ms US and Mr MU. 
That action was allocated to the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Bilbao (Social 
Court No 2, Bilbao, Spain). 
2 By order of 18 November 2021, that court ordered the co-respondents to produce 
to it the worker’s time records and work schedule, failing which the facts relied on 
by the appellant could be accepted as established. 
3 The documents required by the court were not produced by the co-respondents. 
4 On 11 January 2023, the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Bilbao (Social Court No 2, 
Bilbao) gave judgment, upholding in part the action against dismissal and the 
claim for payment, ruling that the dismissal was unfair and ordering the 
respondents to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 364.39 by way of compensation 
and EUR 934.89 by way of holiday pay and special payments. 
5 The judgment accepted as established that the worker had been employed by the 
respondents, since 15 September 2020, as a domestic worker at a monthly salary 
of EUR 1 108.33, with prorated special payments, and that the respondents had 
not registered the worker for social security and paid her EUR 1 000 per month by 
bank transfer. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
6 The worker appealed against the judgment given by Juzgado de lo Social de 
Bilbao (Social Court, Bilbao), arguing that it denied her legal protection and 
infringed her right to an effective remedy, meaning that, having regard to the 
principle of the ease of producing evidence, a new judgment must be given based 
on the established facts that she was seeking to prove. 
7 The co-respondents did not enter an appearance in the proceedings and have not 
contested the appellant’s appeal. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
8 The judgment of the court of first instance held that the actual time worked by the 
worker and the salary claimed had not been established, and therefore it was not 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-531/23 
 
4  
possible to uphold the claim for salary differences on the grounds that the salary 
was effectively paid in line with the salary as established. 
9 The judgment under appeal states that the evidence adduced by the appellant is 
wholly insufficient and that her claims cannot be upheld merely on the grounds of 
failure to produce the time records, since Royal Decree Law 8/2019 provides for a 
number of exceptions to clocking in and out at the beginning and end of the 
working day in special employment relationships, such as that of domestic 
workers. 
10 The matter in dispute consists of determining whether domestic workers are not 
entitled to have a record kept of their working hours, that is, whether employers 
are not required to make available to domestic workers a record of their working 
time and hours of work, unlike the usual practice for other undertakings and 
employers. The judgment examined by the present chamber states that there is no 
obligation to keep a time record in respect of domestic workers, such that failure 
to produce those records, which were requested by the court, is of no significance. 
11 The ultimate effect of the judgment is that the worker has no proof of the working 
time she claims or of her salary, which, owing to the lack of evidence, has led to 
the setting of a lower amount of compensation for her dismissal and to the 
dismissal of a large part of her salary claim. The judgment leaves the appellant 
without any proof, on the basis that there is no obligation to record working time 
in the domestic employment sector. 
12 The judgment under appeal is directly concerned with EU law and the Court of 
Justice’s interpretation of it, from a twofold perspective: (a) the obligation to 
comply with the maximum duration of working time and periods of work and the 
resulting obligation of employers to record that working time (Directive 2003/88); 
(b) the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex against women, who form 
95% of domestic workers as a group (judgment of the Court of Justice of 
24 February 2002, C-389/20) and who should be treated equally to men in all 
areas, including in relation to working hours (Directive 2006/54). 
It is necessary to determine whether a Spanish legislative provision, specifically 
Article 9(3) of Royal Decree 1620/11, which governs the employment relationship 
of domestic workers, is compatible with EU law and the principles underlying it. 
That provision exempts domestic employers from the obligation to record working 
time, unlike the situation of employers and undertakings in other sectors, which 
are subject to that obligation (Articles 34(9) and 35(5) of the ET). That difference 
in treatment in respect of domestic workers must be examined by the Court of 
Justice because it may infringe the EU legislation on equal treatment and the 
organisation of working time. 
The Chamber for Labour and Social Matters of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia 
del País Vasco (High Court of Justice of the Basque Country, Spain) has serious 
LOREDAS 
 
5 
doubts as to the compatibility of Article 9(3) of Royal Decree 1620/2011 with EU 
law, from a twofold perspective: 
(a) From the perspective of Directive 2003/88. The obligation to keep a record 
of working time is essential in order to monitor compliance with the limits 
on maximum working time and in order to claim for overtime. There is also 
a risk that working hours may not have due regard for compulsory rest 
periods, entailing a risk to health, and that situations may arise involving 
abuse of the weaker party in the employment relationship. Where domestic 
workers are excluded from that obligation to keep a record, it is very 
difficult for those workers to prove the hours they have actually worked and 
it places them in a particularly complicated situation when it comes to 
substantiating their claims. That is a consequence which may be contrary to 
Directive 2003/88 and to the Court of Justice’s interpretation of that 
provision, inter alia in its judgment in Case C-55/18, in accordance with 
which the burden of proving time worked rests with the employer. As 
paragraph 60 of that judgment of the Court of Justice states, Member States 
must require employers to set up a system enabling the duration of time 
worked each day to be measured. The Court of Justice added, in 
paragraph 44 of that judgment, that the worker is the weaker party in the 
employment relationship and that it is therefore necessary to prevent the 
employer from being in a position to impose on the worker a restriction of 
his or her rights. In accordance with paragraph 49 of that judgment, the 
objective and reliable determination of the number of hours worked each 
day and each week is essential in order to establish, first, whether the 
maximum weekly working time was complied with and, second, whether the 
minimum daily and weekly rest periods were complied with. 
(b) From the perspective of the principle of equal treatment and non-
discrimination laid down in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The present chamber considers 
that it is essential to bear in mind the fact that the appellant worker is a 
woman. She is a woman who is included in the group of domestic workers, 
which is clearly a ‘female-dominated’ group, that is, it is made up almost 
entirely of women. As the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-389/20 
states, women comprise 95% of domestic workers as a group. That being so, 
the difference in treatment with regard to the recording of working time as 
compared with men raises serious questions. The right to have a record kept 
of working time is guaranteed for all male workers but is not available to 
domestic workers pursuant to Article 9(3) of Royal Decree 1620/11. That 
difference in treatment must be examined in the light of EU law. There must 
be a guarantee of no indirect discrimination on grounds of sex in Royal 
Decree 1620/11 and it must be determined whether that apparently neutral 
provision creates indirect discrimination on grounds of sex against the 
appellant worker.