Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2017:158
Date: 2017-03-02
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Social Policy;Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Spain

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 2 March 2017 Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for interpretation of provisions of EU law manifestly inapplicable to the dispute in the main proceedings — Inapplicability of Directive 2002/15 in proceedings relating to an action challenging a dismissal — Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/15, Arts 1 and 3) The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona (Labour Court, Barcelona, Spain) is inadmissible. It is therefore apparent from settled case-law that a reference by a national court can be rejected if, inter alia, it is obvious that EU law cannot be applied, either directly or indirectly, to the circumstances of the case (judgment of 7 July 2011, Agafiţei and Others, C‑310/10, EU:C:2011:467, paragraph 28). In that regard, it must be noted, first, that it follows from Article 1 of Directive 2002/15 that its purpose is to lay down minimum requirements on the organisation of working time, in order to improve the health and safety protection of persons performing mobile road transport activities, to improve road safety and to align conditions of competition. Secondly, in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 2002/15, the definitions provided for therein are established ‘[f]or the purposes of this Directive’. Therefore, the interpretation of the concepts of ‘mobile worker’ and ‘self-employed driver’, defined in Article 3(d) and (e) of that directive, cannot go beyond the scope of that directive. It must be noted that the dispute in the main proceedings, which pertains to an action challenging a dismissal, relates not to a question about the organisation of working time, but to whether the person concerned must be classified as a ‘mobile worker’ and therefore as an employed person for the purposes of the application of national labour legislation and, more particularly, legislation on dismissals. Therefore, it must be concluded that a dispute such as that in the main proceedings does not come within the scope of Directive 2002/15 and that the concepts in Article 3(d) and (e) of that directive, consequently, cannot apply to that dispute. (see paras 23, 25-28, 30, operative part)