Delimiting working time from rest time in the case of workers residing at the workplace

• Author: R?zvan Anghel
• Position: Faculty of Law, University of Bucharest; Judge, Constanta Court of Appeal, President Civil Division I, Romania, anghel.razvan@drept.unibuc.ro.
• Pages: 49-60

Delimiting working time from rest time in the case of workers

residing at the workplace

PhD. student Rzvan ANGHEL1

Abstract

The ar ticle presents the pa rticular problems encountered in the p rocess of

delimiting working time from rest time in the case of workers who, due to the specific

nature of their work and its or ganization, imposed by the employer, reside at the

workplace, in which ca sethe question arises whether and under what co nditions, the

inactive period s spent by workers in their own residence may be in cluded in working time.

In or der to identify these issues a nd possible solutions, the jurisprudence of the Cour t of

Justice of the Europea n Union is analyzed in order to establish principles applica ble in this

situation, as well as the nationa l jurisprudence of Romania and tha t of other EU Member

States, which is relevant in view of the common regula tion of working time for all th ose

States by Directive 2003/88.The pr actical implica tions of these issues are important from

the per spective of the employer's obligation to respect the maximum weekly working time.

In the presented conclusions, some criter ia for the delimitatio n of working time from the

rest time in this ca se are pr oposed, namely certa in conditions, the fulfillment of which must

be checked on a case-by-case ba sis.

Keywords: working time, rest time, workplace, residence

JEL Classification: K31

1. Introduction

In the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the

concept of working time defined by Directive 2003/88 has been developed to

include periods of time in which the employees are at work place without actually

performing the work2 or they are in their own residence, notworking, remaining at

1 Rzvan Anghel - Faculty of Law, University of Bucharest; Judge, Constanta Court of Appeal,

President Civil Division I, Romania, anghel.razvan@drept.unibuc.ro.

2 CJEU judgement of 03.10.2000, in case C-303/98, regarding Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia

Pública (Simap) v. Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana; see Rzvan

Anghel, Timpul de lucru şi timpul de odihn – Jurisprudena Curii de Justiie a Uniunii Europene,

Ed. Universul Juridic, Bucharest, 2017, p. 75; CJEU, judgement of 9.09.2003, in case C-151/02,

regarding Landeshauptstadt Kiel v. Norbert Jaeger, ECLI:EU:C:2003:437, par. 44-71 of the

reasoning and th e operative part; judgement of 01.12.2005, in case C-14/04, regarding Abdelkader

Dellas, Confédération générale du travail, Fédération nationale des syndicats des services de santé et

des services sociaux CFDT, Fédération nationale de l’action sociale Force ouvrière c. Premier

ministre, Ministre des Affairessociales, du Travail et de la Solidarité, ECLI:EU:C:2005:728

(www.curia.eu); CJCE, 5th chamber, Order of 11.01.2007, in case C 437/05, Jan Vorel v.

Nemocnice Český Krumlov, ECLI:EU:C:2007:23 (www.curia.eu).