Background
M.R., a Slovak firefighter and rescue worker, challenged national rules under which on-call duty at the workplace was not counted as working time. He claimed non-material damages from the Slovak Republic, alleging that the incorrect transposition of Directive 2003/88 harmed his private and family life, rest, and workplace health and safety.
The District Court found that, when workplace on-call time was included, M.R. had exceeded the Directive’s 48-hour average weekly limit during the relevant six-month reference period. On appeal, however, the Regional Court set aside the award, including because the first-instance court had relied on grounds not pleaded by M.R. The District Court then asked whether misclassifying on-call time alone could found an EU-law damages claim and how any compensation should be calculated.
The Court’s Holding
The Court held that Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88, which defines “working time,” does not itself confer rights on individuals for the purposes of EU State liability. Therefore, a Member State’s breach of that definition alone cannot give rise to a right to compensation under EU law.
By contrast, Article 6(b), which sets the 48-hour average maximum weekly working-time limit, does confer rights on workers. If the national court finds the remaining State-liability conditions satisfied—including a sufficiently serious breach and a direct causal link—compensation for non-material harm must be determined under national law consistently with equivalence and effectiveness. It must reflect the actual, specific harm suffered, rather than the duration of the unlawful national legislation; the excess hours worked may be relevant evidence of that harm.
Key Takeaways
- An incorrect national definition of working time does not, by itself, create an EU-law damages claim.
- Workers may seek EU-law damages where the 48-hour weekly limit in Article 6(b) was breached and the State-liability conditions are met.
- Compensation must be tied to proven harm and causation, not simply to how long the unlawful legislation remained in force.
Why It Matters
The judgment separates the Directive’s definitional provision from its substantive working-time protections. Firefighters and other workers cannot recover EU-law damages merely because workplace on-call time was misclassified; they must link the error to an infringement of a rights-conferring provision such as the 48-hour weekly limit.
For Member States and national courts, the ruling confirms that damages assessments remain governed by national liability rules, subject to EU principles, and must focus on the worker’s concrete non-material harm.