Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras (CC.OO.) v Tyco Integrated Security SL and Tyco Integrated Fire & Security Corporation Servicios SA.
Date: 2015-09-10
22. It should be noted, as a preliminary point, that, given that Articles 1 to 8 of the directive are framed in essentially the same terms as Articles 1 to 8 of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18), as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of 22 June 2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2000 L 195, p. 41), the interpretation of those latter articles by the Court is clearly transposable to the abovementioned articles of Directive 2003/88 (see, to that effect, judgment in Fuß , C‑429/09, EU:C:2010:717, paragraph 32, and order in Grigore , C‑258/10, EU:C:2011:122, paragraph 39).
23. Moreover, it is important, first of all, to point out that the aim of that latter directive is to lay down minimum requirements intended to improve the living and working conditions of workers through an approximation of the provisions of national law, in particular, those governing working time. That harmonisation at EU level in relation to the organisation of working time is intended to guarantee better protection of the safety and health of workers by ensuring that they are entitled to minimum rest periods — particularly daily and weekly — and adequate breaks and by setting the maximum average duration of the working week at 48 hours, which is expressly stated to encompass overtime (see judgments in BECTU , C‑173/99, EU:C:2001:356, paragraphs 37 and 38; Jaeger , C‑151/02, EU:C:2003:437, paragraph 46, and order in Grigore , C‑258/10, EU:C:2011:122, paragraph 40).
24. The various requirements laid down in that directive concerning maximum working time and minimum rest periods constitute rules of EU social law of particular importance from which every worker must benefit as a minimum requirement necessary to ensure protection of his safety and health (judgment in Dellas and Others , C‑14/04, EU:C:2005:728, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited, and order in Grigore , C‑258/10, EU:C:2011:122, paragraph 41).
25. Next, with regard to the concept of ‘working time’, within the meaning of point (1) of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88, it is important to note that the Court has repeatedly held that the directive defines that concept as any period during which the worker is at work, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his activity or duties, in accordance with national laws and/or practices, and that that concept is placed in opposition to rest periods, the two being mutually exclusive (judgments in Jaeger , C‑151/02, EU:C:2003:437, paragraph 48; Dellas and Others , C‑14/04, EU:C:2005:728, paragraph 42, and orders in Vorel , C‑437/05, EU:C:2007:23, paragraph 24, and Grigore , C‑258/10, EU:C:2011:122, paragraph 42).
26. The conclusion in this context must be that the directive does not provide for any intermediate category between working time and rest periods (see, to that effect, judgment in Dellas and Others , C‑14/04, EU:C:2005:728, paragraph 43, and orders in Vorel , C‑437/05, EU:C:2007:23, paragraph 25, and Grigore , C‑258/10, EU:C:2011:122, paragraph 43).
27. In that regard, the Court has held that the concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest period’ within the meaning of Directive 2003/88 constitute concepts of EU law which must be defined in accordance with objective characteristics, by reference to the scheme and purpose of that directive, which is intended to improve workers’ living and working conditions. Only such an autonomous interpretation is capable of securing full effectiveness for that directive and uniform application of those concepts in all the Member States (see judgment in Dellas and Others , C‑14/04, EU:C:2005:728, paragraphs 44 and 45, and orders in Vorel , C‑437/05, EU:C:2007:23, paragraph 26, and Grigore , C‑258/10, EU:C:2011:122, paragraph 44).
28. Last, it should be noted that Article 2 of the same directive is not one of the provisions from which the directive allows derogations (see order in Grigore , C‑258/10, EU:C:2011:122, paragraph 45).
35. As regards the second element of the concept of ‘travelling time’, within the meaning of point (1) of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88, according to which the worker must be at the employer’s disposal during that time, it should be noted that the decisive factor is that the worker is required to be physically present at the place determined by the employer and to be available to the employer in order to be able to provide the appropriate services immediately in case of need (see, to that effect, judgment in Dellas and Others , C‑14/04, EU:C:2005:728, paragraph 48, and orders in Vorel , C‑437/05, EU:C:2007:23, paragraph 28, and Grigore , C‑258/10, EU:C:2011:122, paragraph 63).
37. Conversely, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court that the possibility for workers to manage their time without major constraints and to pursue their own interests is a factor capable of demonstrating that the period of time in question does not constitute working time within the meaning of Directive 2003/88 (see, to that effect, judgment in Simap , C‑303/98, EU:C:2000:528, paragraph 50).
44. That finding cannot be affected by the fact that workers in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings begin and finish such journeys at their homes, as that fact stems directly from the decision of their employer to abolish regional offices and not from the desire of those workers. Having lost the ability to freely determine the distance between their homes and the usual place of the start and finish of their working day, they cannot be required to bear the burden of their employer’s choice to close those offices.
48. It also follows from the case-law of the Court that, save in the special case envisaged by Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 concerning annual paid holidays, that directive is limited to regulating certain aspects of the organisation of working time so that, generally, it does not apply to the remuneration of workers (see judgment in Dellas and Others , C‑14/04, EU:C:2005:728, paragraph 38, and orders in Vorel , C‑437/05, EU:C:2007:23, paragraph 32, and Grigore , C‑258/10, EU:C:2011:122, paragraphs 81 and 83).