REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Report on the implementation by Member States of Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time
Date: 2023-03-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, approximation of laws, arrangement of working time, labour law, working time

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.3.2023  COM(2023) 72 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Report on the implementation by Member States of Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time {SWD(2023) 40 final}  
 
 
I. 

Introduction 

This report reviews the implementation by Member States of Directive 2003/88/EC (hereafter 
referred to as ‘the Directive’ or ‘the Working Time Directive’), as required by its Article 24. 
It  updates  the  previous  report  published  in  20171.  This  report  is  accompanied  by  a  Staff 
Working  Document  where  the  Commission  develops  in  greater  detail  the  results  of  its 
examination2.  

The  current  report  does  not  provide  an  exhaustive  account  of  all  national  implementation 
measures  nor  prejudge  any  position  the  Commission  might  take  in  any  future  legal 
proceedings. 

The Commission has also updated the Interpretative Communication3 summarising applicable 
case-law  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  (‘the  Court’  or  ‘the  CJEU’).  This 
Communication  aims  to  bring  legal  clarity  and  certainty  to  the  Member  States  and  other 
stakeholders when applying the Working Time Directive. 

II.  The Directive’s objective and requirements 

In  order  to  protect  workers’  safety  and  health,  the  Directive  establishes  common  minimum 
requirements including: 

- 

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

-  minimum daily and weekly rest breaks (at least 11 consecutive hours of daily rest and 

35 hours of 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 agree to work 
beyond  the  48-hour  limit  (the  ‘opt-out’).  Collective  agreements  may  provide  for  additional 
flexibility, for instance by allowing weekly working time to be averaged over periods of up to 
12 months. 

III.  Analysis of Member States’ application of the Directive  

The  information  set  out  below  and  in  the  Staff  Working  Document  is  based  on  national 
reports (including the views of national and European social partners), previous Commission 
reports,  and  information  collected  from  infringement  procedures  and  from  independent 
experts. It was collected in 2021 and 2022.  

1 COM(2017) 254 final. 
2 SWD(2023) 40 final. 
3 C(2023) 969. 

1 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
A.  Exclusions from the Directive’s scope of application  

From the information available, it can be concluded that the Directive has for the most part 
been transposed in both the public and private sectors. 

In  some  Member  States,  certain  categories  of  workers  are  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the 
general legislation transposing the Directive, but they are generally subject to specific rules on 
working conditions. In the public sector this is most commonly the case for the armed forces, 
police, and other security forces, and also for civil protection services such as prison staff and 
public service firefighters4.  

As for the private sector, several Member States exclude domestic workers5. 

Such  exclusions  are  generally  not  consistent  with  the  requirements  of  the  Working  Time 
Directive,  unless  transposition  of  the  Directive’s  provisions  is  ensured  by  collective 
agreements. 

The  Court  confirmed  in  2021  that  while  the  Directive  applies  to  the  armed  forces6,  certain 
activities  can  be  excluded  from  its  scope,  where  its  application  would  be  detrimental  to  the 
proper  performance  of  military  operations,  notably  in  view  of  the  particular  international 
responsibilities  of  some  Member  States,  the  conflicts  or  threats  with  which  they  are 
confronted, or their geopolitical context. About half of the Member States explicitly apply the 
Directive  to  their  armed  forces7.  Several  Member  States  do  not  do  so  explicitly  but, 
nevertheless,  apply  its  provisions  to  the  armed  forces  to  a  certain  extent8.  A  few  Member 
States do not apply the Directive to military personnel9, without prejudice to the existence of 
national rules concerning the working conditions and protection of health and safety of armed 
forces personnel.  

B.  Workers with more than one employment contract 

The  Directive  does  not  explicitly  state  whether  its  provisions  set  absolute  limits  in  case  of 
concurrent  contracts  with  one  or  more  employer(s)  or  if  they  apply  to  each  employment 
relationship  separately.  The  Court  has  recently  clarified  that  when  workers  have  several 
employment contracts with the same employer, the minimum daily rest period applies to those 
contracts  taken  as  whole,  not  separately10.  As  indicated  in  previous  implementation  reports, 
the Commission considers that, in the light of the Directive’s objective to improve the health 

4  Ireland  (police,  armed  forces,  civil  protection  services,  fire  fighters,  prison  staff  and  marine  emergency 
personnel), Cyprus (armed forces), Italy (police, armed forces, judiciary, penitentiary, public security and civil 
protection services). 
5 Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Sweden. 
6 Judgment in case C-742/19, Ministrstvo za obrambo. 
7  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Germany,  Greece,  Lithuania,  Hungary,  Netherlands,  Romania,  Slovenia, 
Slovakia, Finland, Sweden. 
8 Czechia, Estonia, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Poland. 
9 Ireland, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Portugal. 
10 Judgment in case C-585/19, Academia de Studii Economice din Bucureşti.  

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
and safety of workers, the limits on average weekly working time and daily and weekly  rest 
should, as far as possible, apply per worker.  

Member State practice varies considerably on this point.  

Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, the 
Netherlands, Austria and Slovenia apply the Directive per worker (mostly under express legal 
provisions to that effect). 

Conversely,  Czechia,  Spain,  Latvia,  Hungary,  Poland,  Portugal  and  Slovakia  apply  the 
Directive per contract. 

In Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Finland and Sweden the Directive applies 
per  worker  where  there  is  more  than  one  contract  with  the  same  employer  but  per  contract 
where the worker has more than one contract with different employers. 

C.  Definition and recording of ‘working time’  

In  general, the formal  definition of ‘working time’ set  out  in  Article 2  of the Directive (i.e. 
that  the  worker  ‘is  working,  at  the  employer’s  disposal  and  carrying  out  his  activity  or 
duties’) does not appear per se to give rise to problems of application. 

‘On-call’ and ‘stand-by’ are periods during which workers must remain available to  resume 
their  work  in  case  of  need.  ‘On-call  time’  is  where  a  worker  is  required  to  remain  at  the 
workplace or another place determined by the employer, ready to carry out his or her duties if 
requested  to  do  so.  During  ‘stand-by’,  a  worker  must  be  reachable  at  all  times  but  is  not 
required to remain at a place determined by the employer.  

The  Court  has  held  that  time  spent  ‘on-call’  must  count  fully  as  ‘working  time’  within  the 
meaning of the Directive. During ‘stand-by’ the time linked to the actual provision of services 
is  always  working  time.  The  remaining  stand-by  time  qualifies  as  rest,  except  when  the 
constraints  imposed  by  the  employer  have  a  very  significant  impact  on  the  worker’s 
possibility  to  freely  manage  his  or  her  time  and  to  pursue  his  or  her  personal  and  social 
interests. In such cases, all stand-by time counts as working time11.   

A  majority  of  Member  States12  have  legal  provisions  regulating  ‘on-call’  work,  and  several 
Member  States  address  ‘stand-by’  periods  explicitly  in  their  legislation13.  The  former  is 
generally  consistent  with  the  Court’s  interpretation,  the  latter  does  not  take  account  of  the 
recent case-law limiting when stand-by time qualifies as rest. However, some national courts 
have started to apply that case-law14.  

11  Judgment  in  cases  C-580/19,  Stadt  Offenbach  am  Main,  para.  39,  and  C-344/19,  Radiotelevizija  Slovenija, 
para. 38 and the case-law cited. 
12  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Denmark,  Germany,  Estonia,  Spain,  France,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Hungary,  Netherlands, 
Austria, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden. 
13 Bulgaria, Spain, France, Italy, Lithuania, Hungary, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Finland, Sweden. 
14 In Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Spain. 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Compliance among the Member States with the requirement to treat on-call time as working 
time is improving, but there are still some issues. 

In Denmark, social partners may agree that the rest period can take place during on-call duty 
at  the  workplace  and  some  social  partners  in  the  health  sector  have  used  this  possibility.  In 
Poland and Slovenia, only active on-call duty at the workplace counts as working time, and in 
Slovakia,  on-call  duty  at  the  workplace  does  not  count  fully  as  working  time  for  certain 
groups.  

The Court ruled in 2019 that Member States must require employers to set up ‘an objective, 
reliable and accessible system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker 
to  be  measured’15.  In  most  Member  States,  employers  are  obliged  to  monitor  and  register 
working time, but five have no such obligation or do not define it clearly: Belgium, Denmark, 
Cyprus, Malta and Sweden.  

D.  Breaks and rest periods 

Article  4  requires  a  rest  break  where  the  working  day  is  longer  than  6  hours,  without 
specifying its duration or defining it in more detailed terms. These details shall be ‘laid down 
in collective agreements or agreements between the two sides of industry or, failing that, by 
national legislation’. 

This provision appears in general to have been satisfactorily transposed. Most Member States 
set out minimum provisions for the length and timing of a rest break during the working day. 
However, some Member States do not set a minimum duration or timing for the rest break by 
law16, and it is not clear whether collective agreements regulate this in all cases. 

As regards rest (Articles 3 and 5 of the Directive), the Directive’s core requirement is that the 
worker  must  have  a  minimum  daily  rest  of  11  consecutive  hours  per  24-hour  period  and  a 
minimum  uninterrupted  rest  period  of  24  hours  per  seven-day  period,  plus  the  11  hours  of 
daily rest. The Directive provides a possibility for the weekly rest to be reduced to 24 hours 
for objective reasons. 

These core requirements appear satisfactorily transposed into national law by Member States 
for most sectors. A few Member States appear to have transposed the requirement for weekly 
rest incorrectly in some respects, e.g. because the requirement is not transposed for a certain 
sector17 or by providing for the use of a 24-hour rest period without the presence of concrete 
objective reasons18. 

15 Judgment in case C-55/18, CCOO, para. 60.  
16 Denmark, Luxembourg, Romania, Sweden. 
17 Spain (civil servants), Poland (staff of Intelligence Agency). 
18 Netherlands (voluntary police and miners), Slovenia (health sector). 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
E.  Limits to working time 

Under Article 6 of the Directive, average weekly working time (including overtime) must not 
exceed 48 hours per week. In general, this limit has been satisfactorily transposed, and many 
Member States actually lay down more protective standards. 

In a small number of cases the Directive’s limit is exceeded, notably: 

-  The  limit  is  still  not  satisfactorily  applied  in  practice  by  Ireland  for  social  care 

workers, but work is ongoing to remedy the situation. 

-  The Bulgarian Labour Code still provides for a weekly working time of up to 56 hours 
where  a  system  of  average  calculation  of  the  weekly  working  time  has  been 
established  and  does  not  limit  the  use  of  compulsory  overtime  for  national  defence 
forces, emergencies, urgent restoration of public utilities or transport and the provision 
of medical assistance19. 

It also seems that the four-month limit for calculating the maximum working time is exceeded 
in Bulgaria20, Germany21 and Slovenia22, where it is set at 6 months, and in Spain, where it is 
set  at  12  months23.  This  is  not  confined  to  the  activities  mentioned  in  Article  17(3)  of  the 
Directive.  In  Belgium,  the  working  time  scheme  ‘Plus  Minus  Account’  allows  a  reference 
period exceeding one year24.  

F.  Annual leave 

The  core  right  to  paid  annual  leave  (Article  7  of  the  Directive)  is  generally  transposed 
satisfactorily. 

All Member States explicitly provide for a right to at least four weeks paid annual leave, and 
all provide for the workers to receive their ‘average pay’, their ‘normal weekly rate’, ‘average 
monthly remuneration’ or similar while they are on leave. All the Member States provide for 
an  entitlement  to  a  payment  in  lieu  when  the  employment  relationship  ends  without  annual 
leave being taken.  

However,  two  main  problems  have  been  identified.  Firstly,  some  Member  States  impose 
conditions on acquiring or taking paid annual leave in the first year of employment which go 
further than provided for by the Directive as interpreted by the Court. For example, they lay 
down qualification periods which are too long (6-8 months) before leave can be taken25.  

19 Labour Code Articles 142 and 146.3. 
20 Labour Code Article 142, Civil Servants Act Article 49. 
21 Working Time Act Articles 3, 7(8) and 14. 
22 ZDR-1 Article 144.3. 
23 Labour Code Article 34.2. 
24 Law of 27 December 2006 Articles 204-213. 
25 Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal. 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Two  Member  States  have  systems  in  which  the  right  to  annual  leave  with  pay  is  acquired 
based on the worker’s earnings in a qualifying year which precedes the year in which the paid 
annual leave can be taken (‘the holiday year’)26. The worker is entitled to time off in the first 
holiday year, but without pay.  

The second problem is the lapsing of the right to paid annual leave which the worker has not 
been  able  to  take.  The  CJEU  has  held  that  a  worker  who  is  unable  to  work  due  to  illness 
continues  to  build  up  paid  annual  leave  entitlements  during  sick  leave.  Member  States  may 
place  a  limit  on  the  possibility  to  carry  over  annual  leave  which  cannot  be  taken  due  to 
justified  incapacity.  However,  the  Court  has  also  held  that  ‘any  carry-over  period  must  be 
substantially  longer  than  the  reference  period  in  respect  of  which  it  is  granted’27.  Many 
Member States have provisions which entitle the worker to  carry over or postpone acquired 
periods of annual leave when taking such leave would coincide with a period of sick leave. 
But in several countries, the period before the worker loses his or her right to leave with pay 
appears too short, as it is not longer than the one-year reference period28.  

G.  Night work 

The Directive has more protective provisions for night workers: they may not work more than 
eight  hours  per  day  on  average,  and  the  eight  hour  limit  is  absolute  (may  not  be  averaged) 
when the night work is particularly hazardous or stressful.  

The Member States generally limit the average working time of night workers to eight hours. 
However, a number of Member States have set a four month reference period to calculate that 
average29. This is the same length as the standard reference period for calculating the general 
maximum working time, and is in the view of the Commission too long to fulfil the protective 
purpose of the provisions on night work. 

As  for  night  work  involving  special  hazards  or  heavy  strain,  two  Member  States  have  not 
transposed this provision of the Directive30. One Member State allows exceptions which are 
not provided for in the Directive31. 

H.  Derogations (Articles 17, 18 and 22 of the Directive) 

1.  Autonomous workers 

Member States are under Article 17(1) allowed to derogate from the provisions on daily and 
weekly  rests,  breaks,  maximum  weekly  working  time,  length  of  night  work  and  reference 
periods  ‘where,  on  account  of  the  specific  characteristics  of  the  activity  concerned,  the 
duration of working time is not measured and/or predetermined or can be determined by the 
workers themselves.’ 

26 Finland, Sweden. 
27 Judgment in case C-214/10 KHS, paras 38-40. 
28 Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland.  
29 Denmark, Croatia, Malta, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden. 
30 Germany, Netherlands. 
31 Czechia. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
In  certain  cases  Member States do not  include all these criteria in  their national  definitions. 
For  example,  some  Member  States  exempt  a  worker  who  either  earns  three  times  the 
minimum  wage32,  or  occupies  a  position  of  considerable  importance  or  trust  and  receives  a 
salary seven times the mandatory minimum wage33. 

2.  Derogations requiring the worker to  be  afforded  equivalent  periods of  compensatory 

rest 

The  Directive  allows  for  derogations  from  the  provisions  on  breaks,  daily  and  weekly  rest 
periods, night work and reference periods for averaging working time: 

- 

- 

in  a  range  of  activities  or  situations,  for  example,  those  requiring  continuity,  certain 
seasonal activities, or where the worker’s place of work and residence are distant from 
one another (by collective agreement, agreement between the two sides of industry, or 
national laws or regulations); and  

in  any  type  of  activity  or  situation  defined  by  collective  agreement,  or  agreement 
between the two sides of industry at national or regional level (or, where those players 
so decide, by the two sides of industry at a lower level or by the two sides of industry 
at the appropriate collective level). 

However, the rules do not generally allow minimum periods of rest to be missed altogether. 
This  is  allowed  only  in  exceptional  cases  where  it  is  objectively  impossible  to  provide 
equivalent  compensatory  rest,  and  where  the  workers  have  received  appropriate  protection. 
Moreover, according to the Jaeger judgment34, compensatory rest should be provided in the 
period immediately following the missed rest. 

Member States have generally transposed these derogations and make use of them. 

As  to  the  sectors  and  activities  concerned,  the  Member  States  generally  use  the  activities 
listed in the Directive itself. 

Nevertheless,  some  national  laws  appear  to  exceed  the  derogations  allowed  under  the 
Directive notably: 

-  by  not  imposing  any  requirement  to  provide  equivalent  compensatory  rest  to  the 
worker  concerned,  for  example  by  allowing  missed  rest  to  be  compensated 
financially35, by not imposing such a requirement for certain sectors or shift work36, by 
relying on other kinds of protective measures, or by not providing for a compensatory 
rest which is equivalent to the shortening of the rest period37; 

32 Netherlands. 
33 Hungary. 
34 C-151/02, Jaeger. 
35 France, Finland. 
36 France, Hungary, Netherlands, Romania. 
37 Germany. 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
-  by setting a timeframe for compensatory rest which is too long, ranging from 14 days 
to  six  months  for  missed  daily  rest  in  certain  activities  or  sectors38  and  between  six 
weeks and six months for missed weekly rest39. 

3.  Opt-out 

Member States have the option not to apply the maximum weekly working time limit as long 
as the general principles of the protection of  health and safety of workers are respected and 
certain  protective  measures  are  put  in  place  (Article  22).  A  worker  may  not  be  obliged  to 
work more than an average of 48 hours a week unless he or she has first given explicit, free 
and informed advance consent. The employer may not subject the worker to any detriment if 
such consent is not given. The employer must keep up-to-date records of all workers carrying 
out such work and place them at the disposal of the competent authorities, who may prohibit 
or restrict the possibility of exceeding the maximum weekly working hours. 

Fifteen  Member  States  now  provide  for  the  use  of  the  opt-out.  Of  these,  four  (Bulgaria, 
Estonia,  Cyprus  and  Malta)  allow  the  use  of  the  opt-out  irrespective  of  sector,  whereas  the 
other eleven (Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Croatia, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, 
Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia) limit its use to jobs with extensive on-call time, such as health 
or emergency services.  

Czechia abrogated the opt-out for health services on 30 July 2020, and Latvia ceased to apply 
it  to  medical  doctors  from  1 January  2022.  Consequently,  twelve  Member  States  (Czechia, 
Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Finland 
and Sweden) currently do not use the opt-out. 

The requirements regarding explicit consent from the worker, record-keeping and reporting to 
the authorities about workers who work more than 48 hours a week on average are generally 
observed.  

There are no explicit limits to the number of working hours which can be allowed pursuant to 
Article  22,  but  protection  of  worker  safety  and  health  must  be  respected.  As  the  Directive 
does  not  allow  for  derogations  from  daily  and  weekly  rest  without  compensatory  rest,  this 
limits the working hours allowed. 

It  seems  that  half  of  the  Member  States  which  implement  the  opt-out  provide  some  sort  of 
explicit limitation to the working hours allowed40. 

I.  Assessments by Member States and social partners 

1.  Trade unions 

38 Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Spain, Lithuania, Austria, Slovenia, Slovakia. 
39 Czechia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Finland. 
40 Belgium, Spain, Croatia, Hungary, Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
The  worker  organisations41  consider  that  the  Directive’s  practical  application  does  not 
sufficiently  protect  and  improve  workers’  health  and  safety.  They  refer  in  particular  to  the 
opt-out and the derogation for autonomous workers.  

The ETUC affiliates identify problems of transposition relating to on-call and stand-by time 
not  being  appropriately  counted  as  working  time;  working  time,  including  during  telework, 
not  being  recorded;  compensatory  rest  not  being  taken  directly  after  a  shift;  the  reference 
periods  being  extended  to  twelve  months  by  legislation;  and  annual  leave  rights  being  lost 
during sick leave. 

2.  Employers 

The  employer  organisations42  highlight  problems  and  legal  uncertainty  as  a  result  of  the 
Court’s judgments on on-call time and stand-by time, on recording of working time, and on 
annual  leave. National  legislation and collective agreements were suddenly in  breach of the 
Directive,  and  the  counting  of  more  stand-by  time  as  working  time  created  challenges  for 
organising public services requiring continuity of service (health, emergency services).  

Employer organisations criticise national laws that are stricter than the minimum requirements 
in  the  Directive  and  consider  that  social  partners’  role  in  implementation  is  too  limited, 
constraining working time flexibility in a global and digital world.  

3.  Member States 

Most Member States report that the Directive continues to meet its objectives by providing an 
adequate  and  solid  framework  for  taking  action  on  occupational  health  and  safety.  The 
increase in telework, new forms of work (e.g. platform work), and recent jurisprudence of the 
Court present new challenges of interpretation of the Directive’s provisions. Several Member 
States  ask for clarification of working time status  during on-call and stand-by, on recording 
working  time,  and  on  compensatory  rest.  Some  propose  reassessing  and  revising  the  core 
provisions of the Directive. 

J.  Covid-related measures in the field of working time 

The Covid-19 pandemic deeply impacted the world of work. In 2020 and 2021 Member States 
adapted  the  rules  applicable  to  working  conditions,  notably  on  the  organisation  of  working 
time. Most of these measures were temporary and are no longer in force. 

A number of Member States created new possibilities to extend working time, for instance by 
increasing the maximum daily and weekly working time43 and possibilities to work overtime44 
as  well  as  reducing  the  duration  of  the  minimum  daily45  or  weekly  rest46.  This  generally 

41 ETUC affiliates and CESI. 
42 BusinessEurope, CoESS, CEEMET, CEMR, PEARLE, SGI Europe and SMEunited. 
43 Germany, Luxembourg.  
44 Belgium, France, Latvia, Slovenia, Finland. 
45 Germany, Poland.  
46 Austria, Poland. 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
applied only in  a limited number of essential sectors, notably health.  Temporary restrictions 
entailed  mandatory  home-based  telework  for  a  number  of  workers,  while  several  Member 
States authorised employers to require the taking of annual leave47.  

Short-time  working48  or  partial  unemployment49  schemes  allowed  for  working  time  to  be 
reduced, or the duty to perform work to be suspended altogether, with compensation for loss 
of income.  

K.  Conclusions 

In  general  terms, the large majority of workers in  the EU are subject  to  working  time rules 
that  respect  EU  legislation,  and  are  in  many  cases  more  protective  than  the  minimum 
standards set out in the Directive. 

Member  States’  legislation  is  generally  compliant  with  the  Directive’s  requirements,  but 
various  issues  have  been  identified.  Incorrect  transposition  of  derogations  from  daily  and 
weekly rest, including compensatory rest, is the most common problem. Some Member States 
still  do  not  define  on-call  time  at  all  or  do  not  apply  it  appropriately  in  some  sectors  (e.g. 
health, security, law enforcement and emergency  services). The challenges  of responding to 
the Court’s recent case-law, notably on the qualification of stand-by time and on the recording 
of  working  time,  have  not  yet  been  addressed  widely.  There  are  still  inconsistencies  in  the 
limitations  on  maximum  working  time  for  specific  groups  of  workers  (mainly  health 
personnel and armed forces), but compliance among the Member States is improving. 

The  Directive’s  core  requirements  on  breaks,  daily  rest,  and  weekly  rest  are  generally 
satisfactorily  transposed.  The  remaining  issues  mainly  relate  to  the  use  of  derogations  from 
these requirements. 

All Member States explicitly provide for a right to at least 4 weeks’ annual paid leave. The 
most common problems are on taking of annual leave during the first year of employment and 
on  the  worker’s  right  to  acquire  annual  leave  when  on  sick  leave  and  to  carry  over  the 
acquired leave rights for a sufficiently long period. 

The number of Member States permitting use of the opt-out has slightly decreased. 

In  conjunction  with  and  without  prejudice  to  its  wider  role  as  guardian  of  the  Treaties,  the 
Commission will continue to support Member States’ efforts to improve the implementation 
of the Directive, and is ready to facilitate exchanges between Member States, and between the 
social partners, where these can be helpful. 

47 Bulgaria, France, Latvia, Austria.  
48 Germany, Lithuania, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovenia. 
49 Luxembourg.  

10