Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:449
Date: 2015-07-09
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Social Policy
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - unfounded
Origin: Ireland

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 9 July 2015 1. Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Working time — Definition — Requirement for a worker to be physically present at the place determined by the employer and to be there at his disposal (European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 2, para. 1) 2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Proof of failure — Burden of proof on Commission — Presumptions — Inadmissibility — Action concerning the organisation of working time of doctors in training — Action concerning not the content but the implementation of a national provision — Particular requirements of proof — No proof — Dismissal of action (Art. 258 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Arts 3, 5, 6 and 17(2) and (5)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 20, 21) 2. In proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, it is for the Commission to prove the existence of the alleged infringement and to provide the Court with the information necessary for it to determine whether there has indeed been an infringement, and the Commission may not rely on any presumption for that purpose. In addition, with regard, in particular, to a complaint concerning the implementation of a national provision, proof of a Member State’s failure to fulfil its obligations requires production of evidence different from that usually taken into account in an action for failure to fulfil obligations concerning solely the terms of a national provision and, in those circumstances, failure to fulfil obligations can be established only by means of sufficiently documented and detailed proof of the alleged practice of the national administration for which the Member State concerned is answerable. In respect of an action concerning the application of the provisions of Directive 2003/88, concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, to the organisation of working time of doctors in training in the Member State concerned and, more particularly, to the question of the existence, in relation to Ireland, of practice by the national authorities contrary to Articles 3, 5, 6 and 17(2) and (5) of that directive, the Commission not having proved the existence of such a practice, the action must be dismissed. (see paras 22, 23, 51, 52)