CELEX: 62020CA0214
Language: en
Date: 2021-11-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-214/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court, Ireland — Ireland) — MG v Dublin City Council (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 2 — Concept of ‘working time’ — Retained firefighter — Stand-by time according to a stand-by system — Pursuit, during the period of stand-by time, of a self-employed professional activity — Constraints arising from the stand-by system)

10.1.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 11/8
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court, Ireland — Ireland) — MG v Dublin City Council
      (Case C-214/20) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘working time’ - Retained firefighter - Stand-by time according to a stand-by system - Pursuit, during the period of stand-by time, of a self-employed professional activity - Constraints arising from the stand-by system)
      (2022/C 11/10)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Referring court
      
      Labour Court, Ireland
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: MG
      
         Defendant: Dublin City Council
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Article 2(1) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a period of stand-by time according to a stand-by system served by a retained firefighter, during which that worker, with the permission of his or her employer, carries out a professional activity on his or her own account but must, in the event of an emergency call, reach his or her assigned fire station within 10 minutes, does not constitute ‘working time’ within the meaning of that provision if it follows from an overall assessment of all the facts of the case, in particular from the scope and terms of that ability to carry out another professional activity and from the absence of obligation to participate in the entirety of the interventions effected from that fire station, that the constraints imposed on the said worker during that period are not of such a nature as to constrain objectively and very significantly the ability that he or she has freely to manage, during the said period, the time during which his or her services as a retained firefighter are not required.
      
         (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.