Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 October 2004 in Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach): Bernhard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith (C-398/01), Albert Süß (C-399/01), Michael Winter (C-400/01), Klaus Nestvogel (C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller (C-402/01), Matthias Döbele (C-403/01) v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (Social policy — Protection of the health and safety of workers — Directive 93/104/EC — Scope — Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross — Definition of ‘road transport’ — Maximum weekly working time — Principle — Direct effect — Derogation — Conditions)
Date: 2004-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, interpretation of the law, occupational safety, organisation of work, working time

C 300/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.12.2004

for

the

responsible

1. Article 15 of Eighth Council Directive 84/253/EEC of 10 April
1984 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the approval of
persons
statutory audits of
carrying out
accounting documents permits all the Member States to approve
persons who satisfy the conditions laid down in that article,
namely, persons who have the qualifications in the Member State
concerned to carry out the statutory auditing of the documents
referred to in Article 1(1) and who did so until the date fixed in
Article 15, without their being required first to have passed an
examination of professional competence.

Nevertheless, it is contrary to Article 15 for a Member State to
exercise the power provided for therein after the expiry of a period
of a year starting to run from the date of application of the
national provisions transposing the directive, which date may in
no circumstances fall after 1 January 1990.

2. Article 11 of the Eighth Directive enables a host Member State to
approve, for the purpose of carrying out the statutory auditing of
accounting documents, professional persons already approved in
another Member State, without requiring them to pass an exami-
nation of professional competence, if the competent authorities of
the host Member State consider their qualifications to be equiva-
lent to those required under the national legislation of the host
Member State, in accordance with the directive.

(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 5 October 2004

Lörrach (Germany), made by orders of 26 September 2001,
received at the Court on 12 October 2001, in the proceedings
between Bernhard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith (C-398/
01), Albert Süß (C-399/01), Michael Winter (C-400/01), Klaus
Nestvogel
(C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller (C-402/01), Matthias
Döbele (C-403/01) and Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband
Waldshut eV — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V.
Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann,
J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Cham-
bers, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric,
S. von Bahr and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2004, in which
it has ruled:

1.

(a) Article 2 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989
on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in
the safety and health of workers at work and Article 1(3) of
Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time
must be construed as meaning that the activity of emergency
workers,
in the framework of an emergency
medical service, such as that at issue before the national court,
falls within the scope of the directives.

carried out

(b) On a proper construction, the concept of ‘road transport’ in
Article 1(3) of Directive 93/104 does not encompass the
activity of an emergency medical service, even though the latter
includes using a vehicle and accompanying a patient on the
journey to hospital.

in Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach): Bern-
hard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith (C-398/01), Albert
Süß (C-399/01), Michael Winter (C-400/01), Klaus Nest-
(C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller (C-402/01), Matthias
vogel
Döbele (C-403/01) v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband
Waldshut eV (1)

individually if

2. The first indent of Article 18(1)(b)(i) of Directive 93/104 is to be
construed as requiring consent to be expressly and freely given by
each worker
the 48-hour maximum period of
weekly working time, as laid down in Article 6 of the directive, is
to be validly extended. In that connection, it is not sufficient that
the relevant worker's employment contract refers to a collective
agreement which permits such an extension.

(Social policy — Protection of the health and safety of
workers — Directive 93/104/EC — Scope — Emergency
workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an
emergency service run by the German Red Cross — Defini-
tion of ‘road transport’ — Maximum weekly working time
— Principle — Direct effect — Derogation — Conditions)

(2004/C 300/03)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

3. Article 6, point 2, of Directive 93/104 must be interpreted, in
circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, as precluding
legislation in a Member State the effect of which, as regards
periods of duty time (‘Arbeitsbereitschaft’) completed by emergency
workers in the framework of the emergency medical service of a
body such as the Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, is to permit, including by
means of a collective agreement or works agreement based on such
an agreement, the 48-hour maximum period of weekly working
time laid down by that provision to be exceeded;

In Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01: reference for a preli-
minary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Arbeitsgericht

— Article 6(2) of Directive 93/104 fulfils all the conditions

necessary for it to have direct effect;

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/3

— when hearing a case between individuals the national court is
required, when applying the provisions of domestic
law
adopted for the purpose of transposing obligations laid down
by a directive, to consider the whole body of rules of national
law and to interpret them, so far as possible, in the light of
the wording and purpose of the directive in order to achieve an
outcome consistent with the objective pursued by the directive.
the national court must thus do
In the main proceedings,
the
jurisdiction to ensure
lies within its
whatever
maximum period of weekly working time, which is set at 48
hours by Article 6(2) of Directive 93/104, is not exceeded.

that

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs;

3. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.

(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(sitting as a full Court)

of 5 October 2004

in Case C-475/01: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringe-
ment of the first paragraph of Article 90 EC — Excise duty
on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Application to ouzo of
a rate lower than that applied to other alcoholic beverages —
Compliance of that rate with a directive which was not chal-
lenged within the time-limit laid down in Article 230 EC)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 October 2004

in Case C36/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Omega Spielhallen- und
Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der
Bundesstadt Bonn (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Free movement of goods —
Restrictions — Public policy — Human dignity — Protection
of fundamental values laid down in the national constitution
— ‘Playing at killing’)

(2004/C 300/05)

(Language of the case: German)

(2004/C 300/04)

(Language of the case: Greek)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-475/01: Action under Article 226 EC for failure to
fulfil obligations, brought on 6 December 2001, Commission
of the European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and M.
Kondou Durande), supported by United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: K. Manji) v Hellenic
Republic (Agents: A. Samoni-Rantou and P. Milonopoulos) —
the Court (sitting as a full Court), composed of: V. Skouris,
President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, C. Gulmann,
J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Cham-
bers, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr
(Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 5 October 2004, in which it:

In Case C-36/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany),
made by decision of 24 October 2001, received at the Court
in the proceedings between Omega
on 12 February 2002,
Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH and Oberbür-
germeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn — the Court
(First
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A.
Rosas (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Bahr,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 14 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

Community law does not preclude an economic activity consisting of
the commercial exploitation of games simulating acts of homicide
from being made subject to a national prohibition measure adopted
on grounds of protecting public policy by reason of the fact that that
activity is an affront to human dignity.

1. Dismisses the action;

(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.