Syndicat des cadres de la sécurité intérieure v Premier ministre and Others.
Date: 2019-04-11
23


It is thus clear from the provisions cited in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the present judgment that the average weekly working time may be calculated not over seven-day periods but over periods known as ‘reference’ periods of up to four months under the standard regime and of up to six months under the derogating regime. The calculation of the average weekly working time over such reference periods seeks, in accordance with recital 15 of Directive 2003/88, to provide for flexibility in the application of Article 6(b) of that directive, so that, should the maximum weekly working time be exceeded at certain times of the reference period, a corresponding reduction in working time may offset that excess at other times of the period. Therefore, an equal division of the number of working hours is not required over the entire duration of the reference period (judgment of 9 November 2017, Maio Marques da Rosa, C‑306/16, EU:C:2017:844, paragraph 43).
24


It is also apparent from the provisions cited in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the present judgment that the concept of ‘reference period’ is, first, a single notion which has the same meaning under the standard regime and the derogating regime and, second, a concept that does not contain any reference to the national law of the Member States and must therefore be regarded as an autonomous concept of EU law and interpreted uniformly throughout the European Union, irrespective of how it may be characterised in the Member States, taking into account the wording of the provisions at issue and also their context and the purpose of the rules of which they form part (see, by analogy, judgment of 9 November 2017, Maio Marques da Rosa, C‑306/16, EU:C:2017:844, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).
28


It is true, as the French Government and the European Commission noted in their written observations, that the Court has found, regarding the ‘seven-day period’ referred to in Article 5 of Directive 2003/88 concerning weekly rest and characterised by the Court as a ‘reference period’, within the meaning of that directive, that a reference period may be defined in that context as a set period within which a certain number of consecutive rest hours must be provided irrespective of when those rest hours are granted (judgment of 9 November 2017, Maio Marques da Rosa, C‑306/16, EU:C:2017:844, paragraph 43). The French Government infers from the use of the word ‘set’ in paragraph 43 of that judgment that the concept of ‘reference period’ should rather be understood as a period determined on a fixed basis.
32


As regards, in the third place, the objectives pursued by Directive 2003/88, it must be recalled that it follows from settled case-law that that directive seeks to ensure better protection of the safety and health of workers, by providing in particular, in its Article 6(b), a maximum limit to the average weekly working time. That maximum limit constitutes a particularly important rule of EU social law from which every worker must benefit as a minimum requirement intended to ensure protection of his safety and health (judgments of 14 October 2010, Fuß, C‑243/09, EU:C:2010:609, paragraphs 32 and 33 and the case-law cited, and of 10 September 2015, Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras, C‑266/14, EU:C:2015:578, paragraphs 23 and 24 and the case-law cited).
33


Moreover, in order to ensure that the rights conferred on workers by Directive 2003/88 are fully effective, Member States are under an obligation to guarantee that each of the minimum requirements laid down by the directive is observed and to prevent in particular the maximum average weekly working time as provided for in Article 6(b) of that directive from being exceeded. That interpretation is the only interpretation which meets the objective pursued by that directive, which is to guarantee effective protection of the safety and health of workers by allowing them to have a period of working time which does not, on average, exceed the maximum limit of 48 hours per week over the entire duration of the reference period (see, to that effect, judgments of 7 September 2006, Commission v United Kingdom, C‑484/04, EU:C:2006:526, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited, and of 14 October 2010, Fuß, C‑243/09, EU:C:2010:609, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited).
34


In that regard, the Court has held that that objective implies that each worker must, inter alia, enjoy adequate rest periods which must not only be effective in enabling the persons concerned to recover from the fatigue engendered by their work, but also preventive in nature, so as to reduce as much as possible the risk of affecting the safety or health of employees which successive periods of work without the necessary rest are liable to engender (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 September 2006, Commission v United Kingdom, C‑484/04, EU:C:2006:526, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).
36


Furthermore, it follows from the case-law of the Court that the derogations provided for in Article 17 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted in such a way that their scope is limited to what is strictly necessary in order to safeguard the interests which those derogations enable to be protected (see, to that effect, judgments of 26 July 2017, Hälvä and Others, C‑175/16, EU:C:2017:617, paragraph 31, and of 21 February 2018, Matzak, C‑518/15, EU:C:2018:82, paragraph 38).
46


Moreover, it must be noted that the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding an individual’s rights under EU law must be no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and must not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by EU law (principle of effectiveness) (judgment of 24 October 2018, XC and Others, C‑234/17, EU:C:2018:853, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).