CELEX: 62019CA0107
Language: en
Date: 2021-09-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-107/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 9 — Czech Republic — XR v Dopravní podnik hl. m. Prahy, akciová společnost (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest period’ — Break during which the employee must remain ready to respond to a call-out within a two-minute time limit — Primacy of EU law)

15.11.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 462/7
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 9 — Czech Republic — XR v Dopravní podnik hl. m. Prahy, akciová společnost
      (Case C-107/19) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest period’ - Break during which the employee must remain ready to respond to a call-out within a two-minute time limit - Primacy of EU law)
      (2021/C 462/05)
      Language of the case: Czech
      
         Referring court
      
      Obvodní soud pro Prahu 9
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: XR
      
         Defendant: Dopravní podnik hl. m. Prahy, akciová společnost
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Article 2 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 times must be interpreted as meaning that the break granted to a worker during his or her daily working time, during which the worker must be ready to respond to a call-out within a time limit of two minutes if necessary, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of that provision, where it is apparent from an overall assessment of all the relevant circumstances that the limitations imposed on that worker are such as to affect objectively and very significantly the worker’s ability to manage freely the time during which his or her professional services are not required and to devote that time to his or her own interests;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  The principle of primacy of EU law must be interpreted as precluding a national court, ruling following the setting aside of its judgment by a higher court, from being bound, in accordance with national procedural law, by the legal rulings of that higher court, where those assessments are not compatible with EU law.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.