Case C-133/17. Health and safety

Are Articles 114(3), 151 and 153 TFEU, and the provisions of Framework Directive 89/391/EEC and...

Case C-133/17. Health and safety

Are Articles 114(3), 151 and 153 TFEU, and the provisions of Framework Directive 89/391/EEC and...

Case C-41/17. Health and safety

Has Article 7 of Directive 92/85/EEC 1 to be interpreted as meaning that the night work, which...

Case C-41/17. Health and safety

Has Article 7 of Directive 92/85/EEC 1 to be interpreted as meaning that the night work, which...

Case C-147/17. Working time and health and safety

Must Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC 1 in conjunction with Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC...

Case C-147/17. Working time and health and safety

Must Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC 1 in conjunction with Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC...

2016/28 Employee compensated for employer’s refusal to move her to another office nearer home, as advised by the occupational doctor (FR)

An employer that fails to comply with an occupational doctor’s recommendation regarding an employee’s health, as it relates to his job, is in breach of its health and safety obligations.

2016/28 Employee compensated for employer’s refusal to move her to another office nearer home, as advised by the occupational doctor (FR)

An employer that fails to comply with an occupational doctor’s recommendation regarding an employee’s health, as it relates to his job, is in breach of its health and safety obligations.

ECJ 19 May 2011, cases C-256/10 and C-261/10 (Fernández), Health and safety

The Directive 2003/10 must be interpreted as meaning that an employer in a company in which the workers’ daily noise exposure level exceeds 85dB, measured without taking account of the effect of individual hearing protectors, fails to fulfil its obligations by simply providing the workers with such protectors.

The Directive does not require an employer to make an extra payment to workers who are exposed to a noise level above 85dB, measured without taking account of the effect of individual hearing protectors. However, national law must provide appropriate mechanisms to ensure that such workers can require the employer to take preventive measures.

ECJ 19 May 2011, cases C-256/10 and C-261/10 (Fernández), Health and safety

The Directive 2003/10 must be interpreted as meaning that an employer in a company in which the workers’ daily noise exposure level exceeds 85dB, measured without taking account of the effect of individual hearing protectors, fails to fulfil its obligations by simply providing the workers with such protectors.

The Directive does not require an employer to make an extra payment to workers who are exposed to a noise level above 85dB, measured without taking account of the effect of individual hearing protectors. However, national law must provide appropriate mechanisms to ensure that such workers can require the employer to take preventive measures.