REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on implementation by Member States of Directive 2003/88/EC (‘The Working Time Directive’)
Date: 2010-12-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: arrangement of working time, derogation from EU law, night work, paid leave, rest period, shift work, working time

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 21.12.2010 
COM(2010) 802 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on implementation by Member States of Directive 2003/88/EC (‘The Working Time 
Directive’) 

{SEC(2010) 1611 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on implementation by Member States of Directive 2003/88/EC (‘The Working Time 
Directive’) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  Report  reviews  the  implementation  by  Member  States  of  the  Working  Time  Directive 
2003/88/EC1  (afterwards  “the  Directive”)  as  required  by  Article  24  thereof.  It  recalls  the 
Directive's objectives and main provisions and sets out the main results of the Commission's 
examination of implementation by Member States, backed by the annexed Working Paper of 
the Commission services, where the results of the examination are developed in greater detail.  

The aim of this Report is to provide an overview of how Member States have implemented 
the Directive and to highlight the key problems. It cannot provide an exhaustive account of all 
national implementation measures2.  

2. 

THE DIRECTIVE’S OBJECTIVE AND REQUIREMENTS  

The Directive was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council under Article 137(2) 
of the EC Treaty (now Article 153(2) TFEU).  

Its  main  purpose  is  to  lay  down  minimum  safety  and  health  requirements  for  organising 
working time. Many studies3 show that long working hours and insufficient rest (particularly 
over  prolonged  periods)  can  have  damaging  effects  (higher  rates  of  accidents  and  mistakes, 
increased stress and fatigue, short-term and long-term health risks.) 

The Court of Justice has held that the Directive’s requirements concerning maximum working 
time, paid annual leave and minimum rest periods ‘constitute rules of Community social law 
of particular importance, from which every worker must benefit’4. 

Similarly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights5 provides at Article 31(2) that:  

‘Every worker has a right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest 
periods and to an annual period of paid leave.’ 

1 

2 

3 
4 
5 

Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning 
certain  aspects  of  the  organisation  of  working  time  (OJ  L  299,  18.11.2003,  p.  9).  The  Directive 
consolidates and repeals two earlier Directives from 1993 and 2000. 
Nothing in this report should be understood as prejudging the position which the Commission may take 
in the future in any legal proceedings. 
See the range of studies cited at Chapter 5.2 of the Working Paper. 
Dellas, Case C-14/04, [2005] ECR-I-10253, paras 40-41 and 49: FNV, Case C-124/05, para 28. 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 303, 14.12.2007, p. 1).  

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
The Directive establishes common minimum requirements for workers in all Member States, 
which include: 

•  limits to working time (not more than 48 hours a week on average, including any overtime)  

•  minimum  daily  and  weekly  rest  breaks  (at  least  11  consecutive  hours’  daily  rest  and  35 

hours’ uninterrupted weekly rest) 

•  paid annual leave (at least 4 weeks per year) 

•  extra protection for night workers.  

The Directive also provides for flexibility in the organisation of working time. Minimum rest 
may be delayed, in whole or part, in certain activities. Individual workers may choose to work 
hours exceeding the 48-hour limit (the so-called 'opt-out'). Collective agreements may provide 
for flexibility on organisation of working time, for instance by allowing weekly working time 
to be averaged over periods of up to 12 months.  

3. 

ANALYSIS OF APPLICATION IN THE MEMBER STATES  

In 2008 the Commission launched a fully fledged examination of the implementation of the 
Directive by all Member States, based on national reports (including the views of the social 
partners at national level), reports from the social partners at European level, and information 
available to the Commission from other sources, such as independent expert reports. The most 
important  findings  of  general  relevance  are  summarised  in  points  3.1  to  3.9  below.  These 
points are highly inter-related, and any assessment of compliance with the Directive must take 
this into account.  

3.1. 

Limits to working time 

Under the Directive, average weekly working time (including overtime) must not exceed 48 
hours per week. In general, this limit has been satisfactorily transposed; many Member States 
lay down more protective standards.  

However, doctors may be required to work an average of 60 hours per week in Austria under 
sectoral  legislation,  without  their  consent.  In  France,  the  unclear  provisions  on  length  of 
doctors’ working time seem to have led to a practice where the regular working time rosters 
of  doctors  in  public  hospitals  can  already  exceed  the  48-hour  limit  under  the  Directive. 
Hungary allows an average working time of 60 to 72 hours per week, subject to agreement by 
the  parties  concerned,  in  so-called  ‘stand-by  jobs’:  it  is  not  clear  that  these  contracts  would 
fall  within  the  ‘opt-out’  derogation.  Also,  in  several  Member  States  the  application  of  rules 
relating  to  on-call  time,  doctors  in  training,  or  public  sector  workers  raises  issues  about 
conformity with the working time limit. 

The  Directive  provides  that,  when  calculating  limits  to  weekly  working  time,  the  hours 
worked may be averaged over a ‘reference period’. This allows longer hours to be worked in 
certain  weeks,  provided  that  correspondingly  shorter  hours  are  worked  in  other  weeks. 
Normally, the reference period is not to exceed four months; but it may be extended by law to 
not more than six months in certain activities, and by collective bargaining, to not more than 
twelve months in any activity.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

In general, the reference period has been satisfactorily applied in Member States; and in some 
Member  States,  significant  amendments  have  been  made  recently  to  improve  compliance. 
However, a number of Member States still do not appear to comply fully with the Directive. 
Bulgaria  and  Germany  allow  a  six-month  reference  period  for  all  activities.  Germany, 
Hungary,  Poland,  and  Spain  allow  a  12-month  reference  period  without  a  collective 
agreement. 

3.2. 

On-call time 

‘On-call time’ refers to periods where a worker is required to remain at the workplace, ready 
to carry out his or her duties if requested to do so. According the Court of Justice's rulings6, 
all on-call time at the workplace must be fully counted as working time for the purposes of the 
Directive.  

This  principle  applies  both  to  periods  where  the  worker  is  working  in  response  to  a  call, 
(‘active’ on-call time), and to periods where s/he is allowed to rest while waiting for a call, 
(‘inactive’ on-call time), provided that s/he remains at the workplace.  

The analysis showed that a number of Member States have made significant changes to their 
legislation or practice, in order to bring it closer to what is required by the Court of Justice’s 
decisions: notably the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland (for 
certain  sectors),  Slovakia  and  the  UK.  In  eleven  Member  States  these  changes  included 
introducing the ‘opt-out’, see point 3.7. 

At this stage, it seems from available information that on-call time at the workplace is entirely 
treated  as  working  time  under  national  law  in  nine  Member  States:  Cyprus,  the  Czech 
Republic, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, and the UK. 

This is also the general position, with some relatively limited sectoral exceptions, in Austria 
and  Hungary.  In  addition,  on-call  time  at  the  workplace  is  entirely  treated  as  working  time 
under  the  Labour  Code  as  regards  the  private  sector  (but  not  for  all  of  the  public  sector)  in 
Spain  and  Slovakia.  Moreover,  on-call  time  at  the  workplace  in  the  specific  context  of  the 
public health sector is now entirely treated as working time in France, Poland, Slovakia and 
Spain. 

It is also clear that there is a significant number of Member States where on-call time at the 
workplace is still not fully treated as working time in accordance with the Court’s decisions: 

•  There is no legal requirement or practice of treating ‘active’ on-call time as working time 

in Ireland (as a general rule) or in Greece (doctors in public health services).  

•  ‘Inactive’ on-call time at the workplace is, as a general rule, not fully counted as working 
time  by  the  applicable  national  law  or  collective  agreements  in  Denmark,  Greece  and 
Ireland; this is also the case (except in specific sectors) in Poland7. It is not fully counted 
as working time, under specific sectoral rules, in Greece (public sector doctors); Slovenia 
(armed forces, police, prisons, judges, prosecutors) and Spain (Guardia Civil).  

6 
7 

SIMAP (C-303/98), Jaeger (C-151/02), Pfeiffer (C-398/01) and Dellas (C-14/04). 
With the exception of health services and professional soldiers. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
•  In  Belgium,  Finland  and  Sweden,  national  law  generally  treats  inactive  on-call  time  as 
working  time,  but  has  allowed  derogations  from  this  principle  through  collective 
agreements,  which  often  do  not  comply  with  the  Court’s  decisions.  In  France,  it  is 
common  for  sectoral  collective  agreements  to  provide  for  ‘équivalence’  (meaning  that 
inactive  periods  of  on-call  time  at  the  workplace  will  be  only  partially  counted).  The 
French  authorities  have  called  on  the  social  partners  to  review  their  agreements,  but  it  is 
not clear that they all comply fully.  

•  Compliance regarding on-call time remains unclear in Bulgaria and Romania (generally), 
in Slovenia (other than parts of the public service already mentioned above) and in Spain 
(public service, police, firefighters). 

3.3. 

Compensatory rest 

The Directive’s core requirements for minimum daily and weekly rest periods and a rest break 
during the working day have, in general, been satisfactorily transposed.  

The main difficulties lie rather with the use of derogations, which allow a minimum rest to be 
postponed or shortened, but only on condition that the worker receives an extra rest period of 
equivalent length at another time to compensate for the missed rest (‘equivalent compensatory 
rest’).  The  rules  do  not  allow  minimum  rests  to  be  missed  altogether,  except  in  exceptional 
cases where it is objectively impossible to provide equivalent compensatory rest, and where 
the  workers  have  received  appropriate  alternative  protection.  Moreover,  according  to  the 
Jaeger judgment, compensatory rest should be provided promptly, in the period immediately 
following that in which the rest was missed.  

In  several  Member  States,  derogations  have  been  used  in  a  way  which  goes  beyond  what 
these rules permit. There are three main problems:  

•  Excluding  certain  workers  from  the  right  to  rest  periods:  this  is  a  problem  for  specific 
sectors  in  Belgium  (residential  schools,  defence  forces);  Greece  (public  sector  doctors); 
and Hungary (occasional workers, public sector schools, defence forces). It is a problem, 
more  broadly,  as  regards  certain  workers  in  Austria  (including  workers  in  health 
institutions and residential care) and in Latvia.  

•  Allowing  derogations  which  do  not  require  equivalent  compensatory  rest:  Belgium, 
Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Hungary,  and  Latvia  all  allow  such  derogations  in  a  widely-defined 
range of activities or sectors. Germany (by collective agreement only) and Romania allow 
them in on-call work and health services respectively. Portugal allows them for the public 
sector. 

•  Delays in providing compensatory rest, contrary to the Jaeger judgment: in nine Member 
States,  there  seems  to  be  no  general  legally  binding  norm  about  the  timing  of 
compensatory rest. They are: Austria (as regards weekly rest), Cyprus, Denmark, France, 
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and Malta. In Belgium, Germany, and Latvia, there is 
no legally binding norm for substantial sectors or situations. 

In Austria (as regards daily rest), Belgium (public sector), Denmark (under some collective 
agreements),  Finland,  Hungary,  Poland  (for  some  sectors),  Portugal  (public  sector), 
Slovakia,  Slovenia,  and  Spain,  compensatory  rest  must  be  provided  within  a  specified 
period, but that period can involve a much longer delay than under the Jaeger judgment. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
3.4. 

Doctors in training 

Doctors  in  training  are  covered  by  the  Working  Time  Directive,  following  an  amending 
Directive  of  20008.  It  allowed  the  48-hour  limit  to  average  weekly  working  time  to  be 
introduced very gradually for these workers, up to 31 July 2009.  

This change has clearly led to significant improvements in health and safety protection, in a 
number  of  Member  States  where  no  minimum  rest  periods,  or  limits  to  working  time, 
previously applied to doctors in training. However, the picture is not yet satisfactory.  

Greece has suspended transposition for this group: as a result, doctors in training can still be 
required to miss minimum rest periods and to work very excessive hours (between 66 and 80 
hours  per  week  on  average).  Ireland  does  not  apply  its  transposing  legislation,  so  that  a 
substantial number of doctors in training are still working over 60 hours per week on average 
and some are working over 90 hours in a single week, without receiving minimum daily rests. 
Belgium did not previously transpose the Directive for doctors in training, who worked up to 
79 hours per week on average, but it is currently legislating to do so9. In France, the national 
rules on doctors in training still do not appear to set any effective upper limit to their working 
time.  

3.5. 

Public sector workers  

The  Directive  applies  to  the  public  sector.  There  is  a  limited  exception  for  certain  public 
service  activities,  such  as  the  armed  forces,  police  or  some  activities  of  the  civil  protection 
services.  However,  the  Court  of  Justice  has  held  that  this  derogation  must  be  limited  to 
exceptional contexts, such as natural or technological  disasters, attacks or serious accidents, 
and that the normal activities of such workers are covered by the Directive10.  

In  general,  Member  States  have  transposed  the  Directive  for  the  public  sector.  However, 
several Member States have not transposed it to cover certain groups of workers.  

The Directive has not been transposed in Cyprus, Ireland, or Italy, as regards the armed forces 
and the police. In Spain, it has not been transposed for the police (Guardia Civil) and it does 
not  seem  to  have  been  transposed  for  most  other  public  sector  workers,  including  civil 
protection  services.  In  Italy,  it  is  also  not  transposed  for  the  emergency  services;  and 
derogations  for  doctors  in  public  health  services,  court  and  prison  staff,  as  well  as  the 
exclusion of employees in libraries, museums and State archaeological sites, seem to exceed 
what  the  Directive  would  allow.  In  Greece,  the  Directive  is  not  transposed  for  doctors 
working in the public sector.  

3.6.  Workers with more than one employment contract  

The Directive does not expressly state how working time limits should be applied in the case 
of a worker who is working under two or more employment relationships at the same time. 
Should  the  limits  be  respected  ‘per-worker’  (adding  up  the  hours  worked  for  all  concurrent 
employers):  or  ‘per-contract’  (applying  the  limits  to  each  employment  relationship 
separately)?  

8 
9 

10 

Directive 2000/34/EC (OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p. 41). 
On  13  December  2010,  the  amending  legislation  had  been  approved  by  both  Chambers  and  was 
awaiting royal signature. It was expected to enter into force early in 2011.  
Feuerwehr Hamburg (C-52/04) and Commission v Spain (C-132/04). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
The  practice  in  Member  States  varies  considerably  on  this  point.  Fourteen  Member  States 
apply the Directive per-worker. However, eleven Member States apply it per-contract. They 
are:  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Hungary11,  Latvia,  Malta,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Slovakia, Spain, and Sweden. Belgium and Finland adopt an intermediate position. 

The Commission has already stated that, as far as possible, the Directive must be applied per 
worker12. Given its objective of protecting workers’ health and safety, Member States should 
put in place appropriate mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement, particularly where there 
are concurrent contracts with the same employer.  

3.7. 

The ‘opt-out’  

The picture regarding use of the opt-out has changed considerably over recent years. In 2000, 
the UK was the only Member State to make use of the opt-out. Sixteen Member States now 
do so, including one which is currently legislating to introduce it.  

Eleven  Member  States  indicate  that  they  have  not  allowed  the  use  of  the  opt-out  in  their 
transposing legislation: they are Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania and Sweden.  

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  use  of  the  opt-out  varies  considerably.  Five  Member  States 
(Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Malta, and the  UK) allow its use, irrespective  of sector.  Eleven 
(Belgium, the Czech Republic, France13, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, 
Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain) allow (or are currently introducing) a more limited use of the 
opt-out, restricted to specific sectors or to jobs which make extensive use of on-call time.  

There is also wide variation in the protective conditions attached to the opt-out. For example, 
some  Member  States  specify  limits  to  average  weekly  hours  of  opted-out  workers  (ranging 
from 51 hours in Spain, to 72 hours including on-call time in Hungary), while seven Member 
States  have  no  explicit  limit  for  these  workers.  Two  Member  States  (Germany  and  the 
Netherlands) require a collective agreement, as well as the consent of the individual worker, 
for an opt-out to be valid. Only three Member States (Germany, Latvia and Malta) mention a 
clear obligation for the employer to record working hours of opted-out workers, and only two 
(Czech  Republic  and  Slovakia)  mention  an  obligation  for  the  employer  to  notify  the  labour 
inspectorate when the opt-out is used. In addition, Germany requires specific measures to take 
account of health and safety, and the Netherlands requires the social partners to first consider 
whether the need for an opt-out could be avoided by organising the work differently.  

The  opt-out  has  been  introduced  very  recently  in  many  Member  States.  However,  the 
Commission is unable to fully evaluate its operation in practice, since Member States' reports 
do not provide adequate information about the number of hours actually worked by opted-out 
workers, and over what period of time. Most Member States do not seem to provide for any 
monitoring or recording of working time of opted-out workers. This situation deprives policy-
makers,  Member  States  who  are  primarily  responsible  for  enforcing  EU  law,  and  the 
Commission as guardian of the Treaties, of the basic information needed to examine how far 

11 
12 
13 

Except in health care activities.  
Commission Report on the Working Time Directive - COM(2000) 787, point 14.2. 
The legal situation in France regarding excess hours worked in on-call posts is particular and is set out 
in detail in the attached Working Paper. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
opted-out  employees  (as  well  as  co-workers  or  clients)  may  be  exposed  to  risks  caused  by 
excessive working time.  

There is also cause for concern that, in some Member States, the health and safety objectives 
of the Directive may not be respected, and the requirement of the worker's advance voluntary 
consent to opt out may not be properly applied.  

3.8. 

Annual leave  

The  right  to  paid  annual  leave  under  Article  7  seems,  in  general,  to  be  satisfactorily 
transposed.  The  main  problems  relate  to  delays,  and  to  the  exhaustion  of  the  right  to  paid 
annual leave.  

In some Member States, national law can require a worker to wait up to one year before he or 
she may actually take any paid annual leave. Also, in some Member States, the right to paid 
annual  leave  conferred  by  the  Directive  is  lost  at  the  end  of  a  leave  year  or  of  a  carry-over 
period,  even  if  the  worker  has  not  had  an  opportunity  to  take  it  for  reasons  beyond  their 
control, such as illness. This is not compatible with the Directive14.  

3.9. 

Night work  

Because  the  human  body  is  more  sensitive  at  night  to  changes  in  its  environment  and  to 
certain  more  onerous  types  of  work,  long  periods  of  night  work  can  present  extra  risks  to 
workers’  health  and  safety.  The  Directive  therefore  provides  more  protective  standards  for 
night workers: not more than 8 hours’ work per day on average, and not more than 8 hours on 
any day in night work which is particularly hazardous or stressful. Derogations are possible, 
either by legislation or by collective agreement, on condition that the night worker receives 
equivalent compensatory rest.  

Overall, the rules regarding night work have been transposed satisfactorily. The main gaps in 
transposition  which  were  noted  in  the  Commission’s  last  implementation  report  on  this 
Directive have been addressed. However, in Hungary, the limit to night work does not seem 
to  have  been  transposed.  The  special  limit  for  working  time  in  particularly  hazardous  or 
stressful  night  work  does  not  seem  to  be  transposed  fully  in  Estonia  or  transposed  at  all  in 
Italy;  and  in  Spain  it  can  be  exceeded.  Moreover,  in  Estonia,  Latvia,  Romania,  Ireland  and 
Italy, such work does not seem to be clearly defined, which risks making any limit ineffective. 

4. 

ASSESSMENTS BY MEMBER STATES AND BY THE SOCIAL PARTNERS 

In  their  implementation  reports,  sixteen  Member  States  considered  that  transposing  the 
Directive had produced a positive overall impact; by providing a higher level of protection for 
workers, by making national law simpler and more effective, or by extending legal protection 
to previously excluded groups.  

However,  eleven  Member  States  considered  that  the  acquis  on  on-call  time  and  immediate 
compensatory  rest  had,  or  would  have,  a  significant  negative  impact,  by  creating  practical 
difficulties  for  the  organisation  of  working  time,  particularly  in  24-hour  services,  such  as 
health care or fire-fighting. Fourteen Member States called for changes to the Directive as an 

14 

BECTU (C- 173/99); Schultz – Hoff and Stringer (C-350/06 and C-520/06). 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
urgent  priority  regarding  on-call  time,  more  flexible  reference  periods  or  the  timing  of 
compensatory rest. 

Trade  unions  underlined  the  Directive’s  importance  for  European  social  policy,  and  the 
continuing  need  for  common  minimum  standards  in  this  area  at  European  level.  Protection 
against excessive working hours should not be reduced; derogations should be tightened up, 
the  opt-out  should  be  phased  out,  protective  conditions  more  strictly  applied  and  overall 
enforcement improved.  

Employers  at  European  level  saw  working  time  as  a  key  element  for  flexibility  and 
competitiveness. But they  generally saw the Directive as going beyond what was  needed to 
protect  workers’  health  and  safety.  They  called  for  greater  simplicity  and  flexibility  in 
national  transposition  and  for  changes  to  the  Directive  as  an  urgent  priority  to  allow  longer 
reference periods, and regarding on-call time and the timing of compensatory rest. 

National reports from eleven Member States, and the report by European-level trade unions, 
expressed  strong  concerns  about  the  effectiveness  of  monitoring  and  enforcement  of  the 
Directive  at  national  level,  particularly  in  specific  sectors.  The  most  frequently  mentioned 
issues were:  

–  excess working time and missed minimum rests in public hospitals, particularly regarding 

on-call time by doctors 

–  employers who did not observe working time limits, reference periods or minimum daily 

rests or did not keep proper records of excess working time 

–  national rules which transposed the Directive in an unclear or impractical way 

–  unclear scope of the derogation at Article 17.1 ('autonomous workers')15  

–  employers who did not provide annual leave entitlements within the year. 

Employers’ organisations generally considered enforcement and monitoring to be satisfactory. 
In certain Member States, they felt that monitoring imposed excessive regulatory burdens on 
SMEs and on compliant undertakings. 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS  

The  Commission  acknowledges  the  considerable  efforts  that  have  been  made  in  many 
Member States to achieve transposition or to improve compliance following decisions of the 
Court of Justice or national courts, or notifications by the Commission. 

In general terms, the large majority of employees in the EU work under working time rules 
that respect EU legislation. In many cases, national rules afford greater protection than what is 
required under the Directive. 

However,  the  Commission's  analysis  shows  that  a  large  number  of  Member  States  have 
introduced the use of the 'opt-out' since 2000, with eleven doing so, in order to manage their 
current difficulties regarding on-call time and compensatory rest in 24-hour services. 

15 

See attached Working Paper, sections 4.2, 9.1 and 9.2.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
The analysis also shows that there remain problems with the implementation of core elements 
of the Directive, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, such as: 

–  the  definition  of  working  time  (including  'on-call'  time),  and  the  rules  on  equivalent 
compensatory  rest  (where  minimum  rest  periods  are  postponed),  particularly  in  services 
operating on a 24 hour/ 7 day basis; 

–  the situation of workers with multiple contracts;  

–  the  situation  of  specific  groups  of  workers  (particularly  in  public  defence  and  security 

services; and the so-called 'autonomous workers'); 

–  the lack of proper monitoring or enforcement of the conditions attached to the opt-out, in 

many of the Member States who allow its use. 

The Commission will : 

•  Assess the Directive's overall impact on workers' health and safety against the background 

of evolving work patterns and models of work organisation; 

•  Clarify  the  interpretation  of  some  rules,  taking  into  account  the  jurisprudence,  the 
experience of Member States in its application, and the opinions of the social partners16;  

•  Address  the  position  arising  under  national  laws  or  practices,  with  particular  attention  to 
those  which  result  in  workers  being  obliged  to  work  excessive  hours  or  to  work  without 
adequate rest.  

Without  prejudice  to  its  role  as  guardian  of  the  Treaties,  the  Commission  will  continue  to 
support  Member  States'  efforts  to  improve  their  implementation,  and  is  ready  to  facilitate 
exchanges  between  Member  States,  and  between  the  social  partners,  where  these  can  be 
helpful.  

The Commission launched a review of the Directive in March 201017, based on consultation 
of the social partners at European level under Article 154(2) TFEU.  

It  has  also  launched  a  detailed  study  of  the  economic  and  social  impact  of  the  Directive, 
which will complement the legal impact assessment provided by this Report. 

The  Commission  is  determined  to  bring  its  review  of  the  Working  Time  Directive  to  a 
successful conclusion. With this aim in view, it is adopting, simultaneously with this Report, a 
Communication launching the second phase consultation of the social partners under Article 
154(3) TFEU. 

16 
17 

Details are set out in COM(2010) 801, mentioned in the footnote below.  
COM(2010) 106, 24.3.2010; COM(2010) 801, 21.12.2010.  

EN 

10 

   EN