CELEX: 62016CA0175
Language: en
Date: 2017-07-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-175/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 17 — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Additional payments — Child protection association — ‘Children’s village parents’ — Temporary absence of ‘foster parents’ — Workers employed as ‘relief parents’ — Definition)

18.9.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 309/10
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik v SOS-Lapsikylä ry
   (Case C-175/16) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 17 - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Organisation of working time - Additional payments - Child protection association - ‘Children’s village parents’ - Temporary absence of ‘foster parents’ - Workers employed as ‘relief parents’ - Definition))
   (2017/C 309/12)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   
      Referring court
   
   Korkein oikeus
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Hannele Hälvä, Sari Naukkarinen, Pirjo Paajanen, Satu Piik
   
      Defendant: SOS-Lapsikylä ry
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 17(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 it cannot apply to paid work, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in caring for children in a family-like environment, relieving the person principally responsible for that task, where it is not established that the working time as a whole is not measured or predetermined or it may be determined by the worker himself, which is for the national court to ascertain.
   
      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.