natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The controversy found concrete expression in the judgment handed down on 12 November 1996 in Case C-84/94, United Kingdom v the Council of the European Union
The controversy found concrete expression in the judgment handed down on 12 November 1996 in Case C-84/94, United Kingdom v the Council of the European Union
Case C-84/94, [1996] ECR I-5755. , in which the Court of Justice ruled against the British demand, indicating that protecting the health and safety of all European workers was consistent with the Treaty requirement and did not constitute a violation of the proportionality principle.
Case C-84/94, [1996] ECR I-5755. , in which the Court of Justice ruled against the British demand, indicating that protecting the health and safety of all European workers was consistent with the Treaty requirement and did not constitute a violation of the proportionality principle.
The European Social Charter and the Charter of Fundamental Rights shed light on the privileged place to be accorded to social rights as true fundamental rights enjoyed by citizens of the Union.
The European Social Charter and the Charter of Fundamental Rights shed light on the privileged place to be accorded to social rights as true fundamental rights enjoyed by citizens of the Union.
Article II-91 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe states that:
Article II-91 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe states that:
Every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity.
Every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity.
Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours , to daily and weekly rest periods, and to an annual period of paid leave.
Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours , to daily and weekly rest periods, and to an annual period of paid leave.
In its Impact Evaluation
In its Impact Evaluation
ESA(2004)1154 Évaluation d'impact approfondie, 22 September 2004. , the Commission has highlighted numerous research studies which demonstrate that fatigue increases with the number of hours worked, the inference being that ‘working time above 50 hours can, in the long term, have detrimental effects on workers’ health and the safety’ (page 21), and it also concludes that ‘it can be presumed that the situation would be better without the opt-out’ (page 24).
ESA(2004)1154 Évaluation d'impact approfondie, 22 September 2004. , the Commission has highlighted numerous research studies which demonstrate that fatigue increases with the number of hours worked, the inference being that ‘working time above 50 hours can, in the long term, have detrimental effects on workers’ health and the safety’ (page 21), and it also concludes that ‘it can be presumed that the situation would be better without the opt-out’ (page 24).
In the same study, the Commission concludes (page 25) that long working hours make it difficult for women to enter certain male-dominated occupations and undermine men’s already weak commitment to their parental role.
In the same study, the Commission concludes (page 25) that long working hours make it difficult for women to enter certain male-dominated occupations and undermine men’s already weak commitment to their parental role.
It is not enough to avoid abuses, given that we face problems affecting not only workers’ freedom, but also their health and safety.
It is not enough to avoid abuses, given that we face problems affecting not only workers’ freedom, but also their health and safety.
On the other hand, it would be highly counter-productive to create even more complications in terms of red tape and the demands on companies.
On the other hand, it would be highly counter-productive to create even more complications in terms of red tape and the demands on companies.
That being the case, it is necessary to end the opt-out in Member States where it has been introduced, within a reasonable transitional period.
That being the case, it is necessary to end the opt-out in Member States where it has been introduced, within a reasonable transitional period.
Regarding the reference periods , the standard rule under the directive is 4 months (Article 16(b)), to which exceptions can be made (Articles 17 and 19) whereby a period may be extended to 6 or even 12 months by collective agreement.
Regarding the reference periods , the standard rule under the directive is 4 months (Article 16(b)), to which exceptions can be made (Articles 17 and 19) whereby a period may be extended to 6 or even 12 months by collective agreement.
As has already been stated, the Commission is now proposing that 12 months should explicitly be made the standard rule, thus annualising maximum working time, the only proviso being that the social partners be consulted.
As has already been stated, the Commission is now proposing that 12 months should explicitly be made the standard rule, thus annualising maximum working time, the only proviso being that the social partners be consulted.
Extending the reference periods meets reasonable concerns regarding the flexibility of regulations; it is true that the current directive permits flexibility only in those companies in which collective agreements are in force, and it is logical that such flexibility should be available to all companies in order to accommodate the possible fluctuations in demand for their goods and services.
Extending the reference periods meets reasonable concerns regarding the flexibility of regulations; it is true that the current directive permits flexibility only in those companies in which collective agreements are in force, and it is logical that such flexibility should be available to all companies in order to accommodate the possible fluctuations in demand for their goods and services.
Extending the reference period can have an impact on the protection of workers’ health and safety, in so far as it will permit a longer working week and some longer working days over the year.
Extending the reference period can have an impact on the protection of workers’ health and safety, in so far as it will permit a longer working week and some longer working days over the year.
But it is no less true that annualisation does not change the pattern as regards the total number of working hours and the total number of rest hours, its effect being merely to spread them differently.
But it is no less true that annualisation does not change the pattern as regards the total number of working hours and the total number of rest hours, its effect being merely to spread them differently.
For this reason, the rapporteur considers that annualisation might be acceptable under conditions guaranteeing reasoned and reasonable implementation, with checks and a guarantee of protection of health and safety .
For this reason, the rapporteur considers that annualisation might be acceptable under conditions guaranteeing reasoned and reasonable implementation, with checks and a guarantee of protection of health and safety .
The Commission’s aim of changing the definitions of working time and overturning the rulings of the Court of Justice on the inactive part of on-call time must be analysed more carefully .
The Commission’s aim of changing the definitions of working time and overturning the rulings of the Court of Justice on the inactive part of on-call time must be analysed more carefully .
On the one hand, it is a proven fact that considering the inactive part of on-call periods as working time poses financial problems and serious difficulties for the smooth running of health centres and other workplaces of a similar nature in countries or places where there is a shortage of appropriate personnel.
On the one hand, it is a proven fact that considering the inactive part of on-call periods as working time poses financial problems and serious difficulties for the smooth running of health centres and other workplaces of a similar nature in countries or places where there is a shortage of appropriate personnel.
The difficulties posed by the dearth of professionals are the most serious issue and European legislation must take them into account, given that, in very specific cases, they might interfere with the normal operation of crucial services for citizens.
The difficulties posed by the dearth of professionals are the most serious issue and European legislation must take them into account, given that, in very specific cases, they might interfere with the normal operation of crucial services for citizens.
However, the solution being sought by the Commission is not the best one .
However, the solution being sought by the Commission is not the best one .
We cannot lightly alter the acquis comunautaire and legislate against the case law of the Court of Justice, which has been repeatedly and supremely well argued and established that on-call duty is working time.
We cannot lightly alter the acquis comunautaire and legislate against the case law of the Court of Justice, which has been repeatedly and supremely well argued and established that on-call duty is working time.
It is essential that the European institutions respect the inviolability of the acts that they have adopted and which affect the legal situation of legal persons and no wide-ranging analysis has been conducted of how the change of definitions would affect safety and health principles and compensatory rest.
It is essential that the European institutions respect the inviolability of the acts that they have adopted and which affect the legal situation of legal persons and no wide-ranging analysis has been conducted of how the change of definitions would affect safety and health principles and compensatory rest.
For all these reasons, it is necessary to look for a less traumatic solution entailing fewer social costs.
For all these reasons, it is necessary to look for a less traumatic solution entailing fewer social costs.
Such a solution may involve keeping the current definitions and respecting the rulings of the European Court of Justice as regards all their direct and indirect effects, whilst opening the door to a solution for short-term conflicts in those Member States or institutions where public service management is threatened on account of staff shortages.
Such a solution may involve keeping the current definitions and respecting the rulings of the European Court of Justice as regards all their direct and indirect effects, whilst opening the door to a solution for short-term conflicts in those Member States or institutions where public service management is threatened on account of staff shortages.
Accordingly, in such cases, and subject to additional guarantees, it should be permitted to allow for the inactive part of on-call time in a different way when calculating the maximum working week , giving preference to the conventional method where possible and confining the above measure to situations and persons requiring it.
Accordingly, in such cases, and subject to additional guarantees, it should be permitted to allow for the inactive part of on-call time in a different way when calculating the maximum working week , giving preference to the conventional method where possible and confining the above measure to situations and persons requiring it.
Finally, the aim of reconciling family and working life must be covered more comprehensively than in the present Commission proposal.
Finally, the aim of reconciling family and working life must be covered more comprehensively than in the present Commission proposal.
This compromise must be reflected in the enacting terms.
This compromise must be reflected in the enacting terms.
k návrhu směrnice Evropského Parlamentu a Rady, kterou se mění směrnice 2003/88/ES o některých aspektech úpravy pracovní doby
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/88/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time
Výbor pro průmysl, výzkum a energetiku vyzývá Výbor pro zaměstnanost a sociální věci, aby jako příslušný výbor začlenil do své zprávy tyto pozměňovací návrhy:
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
C ... /Dosud nezveřejněno v Úř. věst.
OJ C ... /Not yet published in OJ.
PRÁVNÍ VÝCHODISKO 2A (nové)
CITATION 2 A (new)
Významné lisabonské závěry byly přijaty až po vypracování původního návrhu směrnice, a proto by v tomto přepracování měly být zohledněny.
The important Lisbon conclusions were reached after the original Directive was drawn up, and so should be taken into account in this Review.
(7) Objevila se potřeba nalézt novou rovnováhu mezi ochranou zdraví a bezpečností pracovníků a potřebou poskytnout podnikům větší flexibilitu v úpravě pracovní doby, zejména co se týká pracovní pohotovosti a konkrétně doby nečinnosti v průběhu pracovní pohotovosti.
(7) It is necessary to strike a new balance between the protection of workers' health and safety and the need to give companies more flexibility in the organisation of working time, in particular with regard to on-call time and, more specifically, to inactive parts of on-call time.
(7) Objevila se potřeba nalézt novou rovnováhu mezi ochranou zdraví a bezpečností pracovníků a potřebou poskytnout podnikům a jednotlivcům větší flexibilitu v úpravě pracovní doby, zejména co se týká pracovní pohotovosti a konkrétně doby nečinnosti v průběhu pracovní pohotovosti.
(7) It is necessary to strike a new balance between the protection of workers' health and safety and the need to give companies and individuals more flexibility in the organisation of working time, in particular with regard to on-call time and, more specifically, to inactive parts of on-call time.
Směrnice nebrání paušálnímu výpočtu nečinné části doby pohotovosti dle národních zvyklostí.
The Directive does not prevent a flat-rate calculation of the inactive part of on-call time in accordance with national customs.
Tímto bodem odůvodnění má být vyjasněno, že je ponecháno na členských státech, jak a v jakém rozsahu upraví v rámci národního práva činnou a nečinnou část doby pracovní pohotovosti.
This recital seeks to make it clear that it is continuing to be a matter for the Member States to decide how and to what extent they regulate the active and inactive parts of on-call time under national law.
Například v Nizozemí je samostatným pracovníkem každý, kdo má příjem ve výši trojnásobku minimální mzdy v tomto státě (přibližně 10–14% pracovní síly) nebo kterákoli osoba, která má příjem ve výši dvojnásobku minimální mzdy a pracuje v řídící funkci.
In the Netherlands for example, an autonomous worker is anyone who earns three times the national minimum wage - approximately 10-14% of the workforce - or anyone who earns two times the minimum wage and who works in a management position.
Článek 2a (směrnice 2003/88/ES)
Article 2 a (Directive 2003/88/EC)
Doba nečinnosti v průběhu pracovní pohotovosti není považována za pracovní dobu, pokud však zákony členského státu, kolektivní smlouva nebo dohoda mezi sociálními partnery nestanoví v souladu s vnitrostátními právními předpisy a/nebo zvyklostmi jinak.
The inactive part of on-call time shall not be regarded as working time, unless national law or, in accordance with national law and/or practice, a collective agreement or an agreement between the two sides of industry decides otherwise.
Období, ve kterém pracovník skutečně vykonává svou činnost nebo své funkce v průběhu pracovní pohotovosti, se vždy považuje za pracovní dobu.
The period during which the worker carries out his activity or duties during on-call time shall always be regarded as working time.
Celá pracovní pohotovost včetně doby nečinnosti se považuje za pracovní dobu.
The entire period of on-call time, including the inactive part, shall be regarded as working time.
Členské státy však mohou, za předpokladu, že dodrží obecné zásady bezpečnosti a ochrany zdraví pracovníků a budou-li provedeny konzultace s dotyčnými sociálními partnery, umožnit prostřednictvím právních a správních předpisů, kolektivních smluv nebo dohod mezi sociálními partnery, aby byla doba nečinnosti pracovní pohotovosti počítána zvláštním způsobem pro účely výpočtu průměrné maximální pracovní doby stanovené v článku 6, za podmínky, že bude dotyčným pracovníkům poskytnuta dostatečná náhradní doba odpočinku a že se taková opatření nebudou vztahovat na těhotné ženy a rodiče dětí mladších jednoho roku, požádají-li o to, nebo že jim bude poskytnuta odpovídající ochrana.
However, Member States shall have the option, subject to compliance with the general principles relating to the protection of the safety and health of workers, and provided that the social partners concerned have been consulted, of allowing, by means of laws, regulations or collective agreements or agreements between the two sides of industry, inactive on-call periods to be counted in a specific manner for the purpose of calculating the average maximum weekly working time provided for in Article 6, provided that the workers concerned are afforded adequate compensatory rest, and provided that pregnant women and parents of children under the age of one are exempt from such measures, if they so request, or are afforded appropriate protection.
2a) Do článku 13 se doplňuje tento odstavec:
2a) The following paragraph shall be added to Article 13:
„Členské státy přijmou opatření, aby zajistily, že zaměstnavatelé oznámí dotyčnému pracovníkovi příslušný rozvrh pracovní doby nebo jeho změnu nejméně 4 týdny předem, aniž by tím byla dotčena odchylná ustanovení kolektivní smlouvy nebo smlouvy mezi sociálními partnery.“
"Member States shall take measures to ensure that employers shall a n nounce the applicable working time pattern or a change in the wor k ing time pattern to the woker at least 4 weeks ahead, without prejudice to collective agreements or agre e ments between the two sides of industry reg u lating otherwise."
Pracovníci mají právo na to, aby jim byla včas oznámena jakákoli změna rozvrhu jejich pracovní doby.
Workers are entitled to advance warning of any change to their working patterns.
16 písm. b) pododstavec 2 (směrnice 2003/88/ES)
Article 16, point b, subparagraph 2 (Directive 2003/88/EG)
Členské státy však mohou prostřednictvím právních nebo správních předpisů z objektivních nebo technických důvodů nebo z důvodů, které se vztahují k organizaci práce, prodloužit toto referenční období na 12 měsíců, s výhradou dodržení obecných zásad ochrany bezpečnosti a zdraví pracovníků a s výhradou konzultací se zúčastněnými sociálními partnery a snahy o posílení všech důležitých forem sociálního dialogu včetně jednání, pokud si tak strany přejí.
However, Member States may, by law or regulation, for objective or technical reasons, or reasons concerning the organisation of work, extend the reference period referred to above to twelve months, subject to compliance with the general principles relating to the protection of the safety and health of workers, and provided there is a consultation of the social partners concerned and every effort is made to encourage all relevant forms of social dialogue, including negotiation if the parties so wish.
Slovo „zejména“ se zrušuje a písmeno a) se nahrazuje takto:
The term "particularly" is deleted and point (a) is replaced by the following:
"(a) vrcholových řídících pracovníků nebo obdobných vedoucích pracovníků a jim přímo podřízených řídících pracovníků majících pravomoc nezávisle rozhodovat;".
"(a) Chief Executive Officers or comparable officers, and managing executives with autonomous decision-taking powers directly subordinated to them;".
Stávající definice je příliš široká a snadno zneužitelná.
The current definition is too wide and open to a lot of abuse.
Cílem je ochrana samostatných pracovníků.
The aim is to protect autonomous workers.
b) V odstavci 2 se slova „za předpokladu, že jsou dotyčným pracovníkům poskytnuty rovnocenné náhradní doby odpočinku“ nahrazují slovy „za předpokladu, že jsou dotyčným pracovníkům poskytnuty rovnocenné náhradní doby odpočinku v přiměřené době, která nesmí být delší než 72 hodiny “.
b) In paragraph (2), the terms "provided that the workers concerned are afforded equivalent periods of compensatory rest" are replaced by "provided that the workers concerned are afforded equivalent periods of compensatory rest within a reasonable period, which cannot be longer than seventy-two hours ".
b) V odstavci 2 se slova „za předpokladu, že jsou dotyčným pracovníkům poskytnuty rovnocenné náhradní doby odpočinku“ nahrazují slovy „za předpokladu, že jsou dotyčným pracovníkům poskytnuty rovnocenné náhradní doby odpočinku bezprostředně po skončení doby, kdy byla vykonávána daná práce, nestanoví-li kolektivní smlouva nebo dohoda mezi sociálními partnery jinak."
b) In paragraph (2), the terms "provided that the workers concerned are afforded equivalent periods of compensatory rest" are replaced by "provided that the workers concerned are afforded equivalent periods of compensatory rest at times immediately following the periods of work concerned, save where otherwise provided by collective agreement or agreement between the two sides of industry."
Text je příliš nejasný ve věci, jak je pracovníkům poskytována náhradní doba odpočinku.
The text is too vague as to how workers are afforded compensatory rest.
Musí být zřejmé, že odchylky od povinnosti čerpat náhradní dobu odpočinku bezprostředně po skončení doby, kdy byla vykonávána daná práce, by měly být možné pouze na základě kolektivních smluv nebo dohod mezi sociálními partnery.
It must be clear that derogations from taking compensatory rest immediately after the period of works concerned should only be allowed through collective agreements or agreements between the two sides of industry.
Touto změnou mají být lépe zohledněny jak judikatura Soudního dvora Evropských společenství, tak potřeby podniků, kterým nevyhovuje požadavek, že zaměstnanec musí využít náhradní doby odpočinku během 72 hodin.
This amendment is intended to take into account to a greater extent the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and also the needs of business which are not served by the requirement that compensatory rest periods must be taken within 72 hours.
Článek 19 (směrnice 2003/88/ES)
Article 19 (Directive 2003/88/EG)
Článek 19 se nahrazuje tímto :
Article 19 is replaced by the following:
„Členské státy mají za předpokladu, že dodržují obecné zásady bezpečnosti a ochrany zdraví pracovníků, možnost z objektivních nebo technických důvodů nebo z důvodů týkajících se organizace práce dovolit, aby byla kolektivními smlouvami nebo dohodami uzavřenými mezi sociálními partnery stanovena referenční období, která se týkají maximální délky týdenní pracovní doby a která v žádném případě nepřesahují dvanáct měsíců.“
"Member States shall have the option, subject to compliance with the general principles relating to the protection of the safety and health of workers, of allowing, for objective or technical reasons, or reasons concerning the organisation of work, collective agreements or agreements concluded between the two sides of industry to set reference periods, concerning the maximum weekly working time, in no case exceeding twelve months."
Stanovisko k návrhu směrnice Evropského Parlamentu a Rady, kterou se mění směrnice 2003/88/E o některých aspektech úpravy pracovní doby
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time