{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-808-24", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-808-24)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-10", "fingerprint": "ewai:eu:1cb91d", "proof": "sha256:f36992017c441079f55d89b5225a8839354a94b83617c25f5240e8f07c39ceb9", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "eu:c-808-24", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Provisional text", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "8 October 2026 ( * )", "paragraphs": [ "para_4" ] }, { "title": "In Case C‑808/24 [Zálečta], ( i )", "paragraphs": [ "para_6", "para_7", "para_8" ] }, { "title": "Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky", "paragraphs": [ "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20" ] }, { "title": "Judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_22", "para_23" ] }, { "title": "Legal context", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "European Union law", "paragraphs": [ "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29" ] }, { "title": "4         Article 6 of that directive, entitled ‘Maximum weekly working time’, provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_31", "para_32", "para_33" ] }, { "title": "Slovak law", "paragraphs": [ "para_35", "para_36" ] }, { "title": "6         Paragraph 86(2) of that law provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_38" ] }, { "title": "7         Paragraph 92(1) of that law provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_40" ] }, { "title": "8         Paragraph 122(3) of that law provides:", "paragraphs": [ "para_42" ] }, { "title": "The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling", "paragraphs": [ "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55" ] }, { "title": "Consideration of the questions referred", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Preliminary observations", "paragraphs": [ "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63" ] }, { "title": "The first question", "paragraphs": [ "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73" ] }, { "title": "The second question", "paragraphs": [ "para_75" ] }, { "title": "The third question", "paragraphs": [ "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95" ] }, { "title": "Costs", "paragraphs": [ "para_97" ] }, { "title": "On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:", "paragraphs": [ "para_99", "para_100" ] }, { "title": "2.       Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88", "paragraphs": [ "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Provisional text", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "8 October 2026 ( * )", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 2003/88/EC – Point 1 of Article 2 – Definition of ‘working time’ – Article 6(b) – Maximum weekly working time – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Working time of firefighters – On-call time at the workplace not included in working time – Right to compensation for non-material damage from a Member State for infringement of EU law – Conditions – Method of calculating compensation for damage incurred on account of the infringement of Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 – Principle of equivalence – Principle of effectiveness )", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "In Case C‑808/24 [Zálečta], ( i )", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Okresný súd Lučenec (District Court, Lučenec, Slovakia), made by decision of 13 November 2024, received at the Court on 26 November 2024, in the proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "M.R.", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "THE COURT (First Chamber),", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "composed of F. Biltgen, President of the Chamber, S. Gervasoni, A. Kumin, I. Ziemele (Rapporteur) and M. Bošnjak, Judges,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Advocate General: J. Richard de la Tour,", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Registrar: V. Di Bucci,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "having regard to the written procedure,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "–        the Slovak Government, by E.V. Larišová and A. Lukáčik, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "–        Ireland, by M. Browne, Chief State Solicitor, A. Joyce and A. Burke, acting as Agents, and by D. Ryan, Barrister-at-Law,", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "–        the European Commission, by D. Recchia, A. Tokár and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 19 March 2026,", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "gives the following", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "1         This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of point 1 of Article 2 and Article 6(b) 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 (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "2         The request has been made in proceedings between M.R., a firefighter and rescue worker, and the Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky (Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic) concerning compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by M.R. as a result of the incorrect transposition by the Slovak Republic of Directive 2003/88 into the legal order of that Member State.", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "Legal context", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "European Union law", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "3         Article 2 of Directive 2003/88, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides in points 1 and 2:", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "1.      “working time” means any period during which the worker is working, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his activity or duties, in accordance with national laws and/or practice;", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "2.      “rest period” means any period which is not working time’.", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "4         Article 6 of that directive, entitled ‘Maximum weekly working time’, provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "‘Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that, in keeping with the need to protect the safety and health of workers:", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "(a)      the period of weekly working time is limited by means of laws, regulations or administrative provisions or by collective agreements or agreements between the two sides of industry;", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "(b)      the average working time for each seven-day period, including overtime, does not exceed 48 hours.’", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "Slovak law", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "5         Under Paragraph 85(1) of zákon č. 315/2001 Z. z. o Hasičskom a záchrannom zbore (Law No 315/2001 on the firefighting and rescue service) of 2 July 2001:", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "‘An officer’s duty time is the time during which the officer is on duty and remains at the disposal of the official authority.’", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "6         Paragraph 86(2) of that law provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "‘In the event of an uneven distribution of working time, the duration of duty on individual duty days may not exceed 18 hours. The duration of duty and the directly related on-call time assigned at the place where duty is performed may not exceed 24 hours per duty day in total.’", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "7         Paragraph 92(1) of that law provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "‘The official authority assigns an officer [of the firefighting and rescue unit] to on-call duty at the place where duty is performed; the on-call duty is directly related to the performance of duty under Paragraph 86(2), as part of the duty time schedule.’", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "8         Paragraph 122(3) of that law provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "‘Remuneration for the on-call time is not due for the time when duty is performed during such on-call duty; the performance of such duty is treated as overtime.’", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "9         M.R., who is a member of the fire and rescue service of the municipality of Lučenec (Slovakia), considers that, in breach of point 1 of Article 2 and Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88, the on-call time he has spent at his place of work is not treated in the same way as working time. Therefore, he claims to have suffered non-material damage as a result of the incorrect transposition of point 1 of Article 2 into the Slovak legal system, with the result that the maximum weekly working time as defined in Article 6(b) was infringed in his case. Such infringements undermined, inter alia, his right to respect for his private and family life.", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "10       M.R. brought an action before the Okresný súd Lučenec (District Court, Lučenec, Slovakia) seeking compensation for non-material damage for infringement of his right to respect for his private and family life, his right to adequate rest after work and to the protection of safety and health at work. By contrast, he did not seek compensation for the on-call hours that were not counted as part of his working time and which, in his case, resulted in the 48-hour limit laid down in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 as regards maximum weekly working time being exceeded.", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "11       By judgment of 20 December 2023, that court found that, in breach of point 1 of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88, as interpreted by the Court in the judgment of 21 February 2018, Matzak (C‑518/15, EU:C:2018:82), the Slovak legislation provided for the possibility of not counting, as working time, on-call time spent by a firefighter both at his or her place of work and at home. In that regard, the Okresný súd Lučenec (District Court, Lučenec) noted that, in order to obtain compensation, it was not sufficient that on-call time was not counted as working time within the meaning of point 1 of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88. It was also necessary for working time, including on-call time, to exceed the maximum weekly working time provided for in Article 6 (b) of that directive.", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "12       As regards that point, the Okresný súd Lučenec (District Court, Lučenec) found that, during the reference period concerned, the duration of which was six months, the duration of M.R.’s working time, including his on-call time, exceeded the number of days that could be worked during that period by 28 days, in breach of Article 6(b) of that directive, and that the exceeding of that working time must objectively have had an effect on M.R.’s private and family life.", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "13       Consequently, that court ordered the Slovak Republic to pay M.R. compensation for non-material damage, calculated taking into account, first, the extent of that excess time and, second, the loss of hope for a change in the national legislation, in view of the absence of such an amendment despite the case-law of the Court resulting, inter alia, from the judgment of 21 February 2018, Matzak (C‑518/15, EU:C:2018:82).", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "14       The Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic brought an appeal against that judgment before the Krajský súd v Banskej Bystrici (Regional Court, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia) which, by order of 30 May 2024, set aside that judgment on the ground that the Okresný súd Lučenec (District Court, Lučenec) had ruled ultra petita , since M.R. had not relied before that court on either a right based on the loss of hope for a change in the national legislation or the right to compensation for non-material damage linked to the number of hours worked beyond the limit laid down in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88. M.R. claimed only that he had suffered non-material damage, in particular as a result of the failure to take into account, as working time, the time that he had spent on call during the period concerned. In addition, the Krajský súd v Banskej Bystrici (Regional Court, Banská Bystrica) held that the non-material damage caused by the incompatibility of the national law with point 1 of Article 2 of that directive was to give rise to compensation without there being any need to find an infringement of Article 6(b) of that directive.", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "15       The Krajský súd v Banskej Bystrici (Regional Court, Banská Bystrica) referred the case back to the Okresný súd Lučenec (District Court, Lučenec), which, as the referring court, has doubts as to the interpretation of point 1 of Article 2 and Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88. That court asks, in essence, whether, as the Krajský súd v Banskej Bystrici (Regional Court, Banská Bystrica) appears to have accepted, it is sufficient, in order for M.R. to obtain compensation for non-material damage, that his on-call time was not counted as working time, in breach of point 1 of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88, or whether it is necessary that the limit of 48 hours over a seven-day period laid down in Article 6(b) of that directive was also disregarded.", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "16       According to the referring court, point 1 of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 contains only a definition of the concept of ‘working time’, whereas Article 6(b) of that directive expressly prohibits exceeding the limits set as regards maximum weekly working time, within the meaning of that concept as defined. Thus, that court considers that a right to compensation for the persons concerned exists only in the event of an infringement of Article 6(b), read in conjunction with point 1 of Article 2, and not in the event of an infringement of the latter provision taken in isolation.", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "17       In those circumstances, the Okresný súd Lučenec (District Court, Lučenec) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "‘(1)      Does the fact that, pursuant to national legislation, an employee’s on-call duty [time] is not counted as working time, contrary to [point 1 of Article 2] of Directive [2003/88], provide a basis for a claim for damages against a Member State for an infringement of EU law without the need to demonstrate that Article 6(b) of that directive was also infringed in relation to that employee?", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "(2)      If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should the national court, in determining whether the amount of compensation is appropriate, take into account the number of hours of on-call duty which, as a result of the national legislation, was not included in the employee’s working time, or should the amount of compensation payable by the Member State be determined on the basis of the duration of the unlawful situation arising from the national legislation, which allows on-call duty hours not to be included in the employee’s working time, contrary to Directive 2003/88?", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "(3)      If the answer to the second question is in the negative, should the national court, in determining whether the amount of compensation is appropriate, take into account the number of hours during which Article 6(b) of the directive was infringed, or should the amount of compensation payable by the Member State be determined on the basis of the duration of the unlawful situation arising from the national legislation, which allows on-call duty hours not to be included in the employee’s working time, contrary to Directive 2003/88?’", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "Consideration of the questions referred", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "Preliminary observations", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "18       As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that the principle of State liability for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of EU law for which the State can be held responsible is inherent in the system of the Treaties on which the European Union is based (judgments of 19 November 1991, Francovich and Others , C‑6/90 and C‑9/90, EU:C:1991:428, paragraph 35, and of 8 September 2026, Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others , C‑293/24, EU:C:2026:723, paragraph 42).", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "19       That principle applies to any case of infringement of EU law by a Member State, irrespective of the body of the Member State whose action or omission gave rise to that infringement, including the national legislature, and irrespective of the public authority which, under the law of the Member State concerned, is in principle responsible for making reparation (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 March 1996, Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame , C‑46/93 and C‑48/93, EU:C:1996:79, paragraphs 32 and 63, and of 28 June 2022, Commission v Spain (Breach of EU law by the legislature) , C‑278/20, EU:C:2022:503, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "20       As regards the conditions for State liability for loss and damage caused to individuals by breaches of EU law for which the State can be held responsible, the Court has repeatedly held that recognition of the right of individuals harmed to compensation for damage is subject to three conditions: the rule of EU law infringed must be intended to confer rights on those individuals; the breach of that rule must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between that breach and the loss or damage sustained by those individuals (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 March 1996, Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame , C‑46/93 and C‑48/93, EU:C:1996:79, paragraph 51, and of 8 September 2026, Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others , C‑293/24, EU:C:2026:723, paragraph 44).", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "21       Those three conditions are necessary and sufficient to found a right in favour of individuals to obtain redress, although this does not mean that a Member State cannot incur liability under less strict conditions on the basis of national law (judgment of 28 June 2022, Commission v Spain (Breach of EU law by the legislature ), C‑278/20, EU:C:2022:503, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "22       Subject to the right to reparation which thus flows directly from EU law, where the three conditions recalled in paragraph 20 above are satisfied, it is on the basis of the rules of national law on liability that the State must make reparation for the consequences of the loss or harm caused, provided that the conditions for reparation of loss or harm laid down by national law are not less favourable than those relating to similar domestic claims (principle of equivalence) and are not so framed as to make it, in practice, impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation (principle of effectiveness) (judgment of 28 June 2022, Commission v Spain (Breach of EU law by the legislature ), C‑278/20, EU:C:2022:503, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "23       Therefore, it is in the light of the principles set out in paragraphs 18 to 22 of the present judgment that the questions raised by the referring court must be examined.", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "The first question", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "24       By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether point 1 of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that that provision is intended to confer rights on individuals, with the result that its infringement by a Member State is capable of giving rise to a right to compensation on the part of those individuals, on the basis of EU law, without those persons being required to demonstrate at the same time infringement of Article 6(b).", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "25       In the first place, point 1 of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 defines the concept of ‘working time’ as ‘any period during which the worker is working, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his [or her] activity or duties’. According to point 2 of Article 2 of that directive, the concept of ‘rest period’ is defined as ‘any period which is not working time’.", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "26       In the second place, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court 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 (judgment of 9 October 2025, STAS – IV , C‑110/24, EU:C:2025:768, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "27       In the third place, the Court has held that Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 is not one of the provisions from which the directive allows derogations (judgment of 9 October 2025, STAS – IV , C‑110/24, EU:C:2025:768, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "28       It follows that the concept of ‘working time’ is one of the fundamental concepts on which all the provisions of Directive 2003/88 are based, and that the compatibility of national law with the definition of that concept is essential for the correct application of that set of provisions.", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "29       However, it cannot be inferred from the wording of point 1 of Article 2 of that directive that that provision is, in itself, intended to confer rights on individuals, with the result that its infringement by a Member State is capable of conferring on individuals a right to reparation by that Member State as a result of that infringement. Article 2 of that directive, as its title indicates, merely defines, in point 1 thereof, the concept of ‘working time’ for the purposes of that directive, as meaning ‘any period during which the worker is working, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his activity or duties, in accordance with national laws and/or practice’, without entailing any conferral of rights on individuals or positive or negative obligations on individuals, Member States or EU institutions, within the meaning of the settled case-law of the Court, resulting, inter alia, from the judgment of 5 March 2024, Kočner v Europol (C‑755/21 P, EU:C:2024:202, paragraph 119 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "30       Therefore, it appears that, in the event of infringement of point 1 of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 alone, the first condition for establishing State liability referred to in paragraph 20 of the present judgment is not satisfied.", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "31       It should nevertheless be recalled, so far as is relevant, that, according to the Court’s case-law, EU law does not at all rule out the possibility of a State being liable in less restrictive conditions on the basis of national law (judgment of 25 November 2010, Fuß , C‑429/09, EU:C:2010:717, paragraph 66), which it is for the referring court to determine in the present case.", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "32       Consequently, the answer to the first question is that point 1 of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not intended to confer rights on individuals, so that a breach of that provision by a Member State cannot give rise to a right to compensation for those individuals under EU law.", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "The second question", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "33       Since the second question is asked by the referring court in the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, there is no need to answer it.", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "The third question", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "34       By its third question, which is asked in the event that the first question is answered in the negative, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that the compensation, payable by Member States, for non-material damage caused to individuals by the infringement of that provision must be determined in accordance with national law, taking into account the number of hours worked beyond the limit laid down in that provision or the duration of the infringement of EU law resulting from the fact that the national legislation concerned does not provide for on-call time to be counted as ‘working time’ within the meaning of point 1 of Article 2 of that directive.", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "35       In order to answer that question, it is for the referring court to ascertain whether the conditions for establishing State liability, referred to in paragraph 20 of the present judgment, are satisfied in the present case.", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "36       In this respect, as regards the first condition for establishing State liability, namely that the rule of EU law infringed is intended to confer rights on individuals, the Court has already held that Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 constitutes a rule of EU social law which confers on individuals rights upon which they are entitled to rely directly before the national courts on the ground that it imposes on Member States, a maximum limit for the average working week from which every worker must benefit, because it is a minimum requirement. (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 October 2004, Pfeiffer and Others , C‑397/01 to C‑403/01, EU:C:2004:584, paragraph 100, and of 25 November 2010, Fuß , C‑429/09, EU:C:2010:717, paragraphs 49 and 50).", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "37       Thus, on condition that M.R. based his action not only on an infringement of point 1 of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88 but also an infringement on Article 6(b) of that directive, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, it appears that the first condition for the Slovak Republic to incur liability is satisfied.", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "38       As regards the second condition for establishing State liability, it follows from the case-law of the Court that the decisive criterion for finding that a breach of EU law is sufficiently serious is that there must have been a manifest and grave disregard for the limits of the discretion laid down by the rule infringed. Where the authority concerned has only considerably reduced, or even no, discretion, the mere infringement of EU law may be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of that law. The assessment to be carried out requires account to be taken of the field, the circumstances and context in which the obligation in question falls on the authority concerned. In addition, account must be taken, in particular, of the degree of clarity and precision of the rule infringed and of the measure of discretion left by that rule to the authority concerned, the complexity of the situation to be regulated and difficulties in the application or interpretation of the legislation (judgment of 5 March 2024, Kočner v Europol , C‑755/21 P, EU:C:2024:202, paragraphs 126 to 128 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "39       In any event, an infringement of EU law must be regarded as sufficiently serious where it was made in manifest breach of the case-law of the Court (judgment of 25 November 2010, Fuß , C‑429/09, EU:C:2010:717, paragraph 52, and, to that effect, judgment of 1 August 2025, Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and Others , C‑97/24, EU:C:2025:594, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "40       It is apparent from the information in the order for reference that the on-call time spent by M.R. for the period in question, from 1 August 2020 to 30 June 2023, was not regarded as ‘working time’ within the meaning of Slovak law. It is also apparent from that order that, during the six-month reference period concerned, the duration of M.R.’s working time had exceeded the maximum duration of 48 hours in a seven-day period provided for in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88.", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "41       In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, during the period from 1 August 2020 to 30 June 2023, the Court’s case-law on the concept of ‘working time’, in particular as regards firefighters, was already well established. The Court has held, inter alia, that ‘the activities carried out by the operational crews of a public fire service … fall within the scope of Directive 2003/88, with the result that, in principle, Article 6(b) thereof precludes the exceeding of the 48-hour ceiling prescribed as the maximum weekly working time, including time on call’ (judgment of 25 November 2010, Fuß , C‑429/09, EU:C:2010:717, paragraph 57).", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "42       Furthermore, the Court has also stated, as referred to in paragraph 27 above, that Article 2 of Directive 2003/88, which defines the concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest period’, is not one of the provisions from which that directive allows derogations (judgments of 10 September 2015, Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras , C‑266/14, EU:C:2015:578, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited, and of 9 October 2025, STAS – IV , C‑110/24, EU:C:2025:768, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "43       If it were apparent, in the light of the case-law referred to in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the present judgment, that the failure to comply with the requirements of Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 during the period between 1 August 2020 and 30 June 2023 occurred in manifest disregard of the Court’s case-law, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, the existence of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law would be established.", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "44       Consequently, the second condition for establishing State liability, within the meaning of the case-law cited in paragraph 20 of the present judgment, would be satisfied.", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "45       As regards the third condition for establishing State liability for an infringement of EU law, it is for the referring court to ascertain whether, as it appears from the order for reference, there is a causal link between the exceeding of the duration of the working time provided for in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 and the non-material damage for which M.R. seeks compensation.", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "46       As regards the detailed rules for compensation for non-material damage suffered as a result of the infringement of EU law, it should be noted, first, that Directive 2003/88 does not contain any specific rule concerning compensation for any harm suffered by workers as a result of an infringement of the minimum requirements which it lays down, in particular as regards the duration of working time. Consequently, it cannot be inferred from the provisions of that directive that it favours one form of compensation over others (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 November 2010, Fuß , C‑429/09, EU:C:2010:717, paragraphs 44, 96 and 98, and of 20 June 2024, Artemis security , C‑367/23, EU:C:2024:529, paragraphs 26 and 27).", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "47       Secondly, in the absence of provisions of EU law in the matter, it is on the basis of national law on liability that the State must make reparation for the consequences of the loss or harm caused, provided that the conditions for reparation of loss or harm laid down by national law are not less favourable than those relating to similar domestic claims (principle of equivalence) and are not so framed as to make it, in practice, impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation (principle of effectiveness) (judgments of 25 November 2010, Fuß , C‑429/09, EU:C:2010:717, paragraph 62, and of 28 June 2022, Commission v Spain (Breach of EU law by the legislature ), C‑278/20, EU:C:2022:503, paragraphs 176 to 184).", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "48       Thirdly, the Court has held that reparation for loss or damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of EU law must be commensurate with the loss or damage sustained so as to ensure the effective protection of their rights (judgment of 25 November 2010, Fuß , C‑429/09, EU:C:2010:717, paragraph 92).", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "49       In those circumstances, it is for the Member States, in compliance with those principles, first, to determine whether reparation for the loss or damage caused to an individual as a result of the infringement of the provisions of Directive 2003/88 must take the form of financial compensation and, second, to lay down the rules concerning how that reparation is to be calculated (see, by analogy, judgment of 25 November 2010, Fuß , C‑429/09, EU:C:2010:717, paragraph 94).", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "50       As regards, more particularly, the rules on compensation, payable by Member States, for damage caused by them to individuals by the infringement of Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88, they must be determined in accordance with national law, not on the basis of the duration of the breach of EU law resulting from the fact that the relevant national legislation does not provide for on-call time to be counted as ‘working time’ within the meaning of point 1 of Article 2 of that directive, but on the basis of the harm actually and specifically suffered by the individuals concerned, where there is a direct causal link to the infringement of Article 6(b) of that directive, and in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "51       In the present case, account could be taken, in particular, of the number of hours worked beyond the limit laid down in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88, which is liable to have an impact on M.R.’s private and family life, as set out in the order for reference.", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "52       Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the answer to the third question is that Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that compensation, payable by Member States, for non-material damage caused by them to individuals as a result of the breach of that provision, must be determined in accordance with national law, not on the basis of the duration of the breach of EU law resulting from the fact that the relevant national legislation does not provide for on-call time to be counted as ‘working time’, within the meaning of point 1 of Article 2 of that directive, but on the basis of the harm actually and specifically suffered by the individuals concerned, where there is a direct causal link to the breach of Article 6(b) of that directive, and in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "Costs", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "53       Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "1.       Point 1 of Article 2 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", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "must be interpreted as meaning that it is not intended to confer rights on individuals, so that a breach of that provision by a Member State cannot give rise to a right to compensation for those individuals under EU law.", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "2.       Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "must be interpreted as meaning that compensation, payable by Member States, for non-material damage caused by them to individuals as a result of the breach of that provision, must be determined in accordance with national law, not on the basis of the duration of the breach of EU law resulting from the fact that the relevant national legislation does not provide for on-call time to be counted as ‘working time’, within the meaning of point 1 of Article 2 of that directive, but on the basis of the harm actually and specifically suffered by the individuals concerned, where there is a direct causal link to the breach of Article 6(b) of that directive, and in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "[Signatures]", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "*       Language of the case: Slovak.", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "i       The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_105" } ], "word_count": 5229, "cites": [ "C-518/15", "C-6/90", "C-9/90", "C-293/24", "C-46/93", "C-48/93", "C-278/20", "C-110/24", "C-755/21", "C-429/09", "C-397/01", "C-403/01", "C-97/24", "C-266/14", "C-367/23" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "efddd08409f8ea4213a61a427d8fa83ba723a4ab800b95e02d3cbf4f1c0c63fa", "source_url": "https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62024CJ0808", "fetched_at": "2026-10-09T12:31:02.312+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-808-24", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-808-24", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-808-24", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-808-24", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "efddd08409f8ea4213a61a427d8fa83ba723a4ab800b95e02d3cbf4f1c0c63fa", "recomputed_sha256": "efddd08409f8ea4213a61a427d8fa83ba723a4ab800b95e02d3cbf4f1c0c63fa", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-10T21:51:01.179Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:f36992017c441079f55d89b5225a8839354a94b83617c25f5240e8f07c39ceb9", "version": "legal-2026-10-10", "expires": "2026-10-11T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-10+legal-2026-10-10+2026-10-10T17:32:53", "content_hash": "sha256:f36992017c441079f55d89b5225a8839354a94b83617c25f5240e8f07c39ceb9", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-10T22:51:01.554Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-808-24", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-808-24" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-808-24" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-808-24" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }