In this respect, references will be made to the first of the two judgments, namely to C-344/19 Radiotelevizija Slovenija, unless indicated otherwise. Since the Court’s responses in both cases are drafted, for the most part, in identical terms, they will be rolled into one for the purpose of the following analysis. Against that background, it will be concluded that the Court has adopted guidance that restricts workers’ rights, even though this may be concealed by decorative language (4.). It briefly presents the factual background of the litigations (1.), then illustrates the deferential solution adopted by the Court (2.) and analyses the guidance given to national courts in this respect (3.). Has the Court turned away from its firm support of workers’ rights in earlier case law to mere lip service? To answer this question, the post proceeds in four steps. Whereas the final decision on these matters is delegated to national courts, the CJEU’s guidance in this regard is likely to play out to the detriment of workers.Īccordingly, this blog post discusses the repercussions that these recent judgments create for workers. On the other hand, a close examination of these judgments reveals that the Court’s reasoning weakens the position of workers in practice. Strikingly, the Court of Justice’s (CJEU) recent judgments in Radiotelevizija Slovenija and Stadt Offenbach am Main mark a similar approach: on the one hand, the Court enunciated the significance of workers’ rights in Union law in the context of the qualification of stand-by duties as ‘working time’ for the purpose of the Working Time Directive. Amazon, for instance, gloated over the heroism of its employees, glossing over the fact that the company’s revenue has skyrocketed during the pandemic. Showcasing respect for workers’ rights has become a popular advertising strategy. Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies.Call for Papers: Neues aus dem Elfenbeinturm.

Working time directive legislation