ECJ 4 October 2018, C-12/17 (Dicu), Maternity and parental leave, paid leave (RO)

A period of parental leave does not count within the reference period for the purpose of determining an employee’s right to annual leave under Directive 2003/88/EC. Tribunalul Botoşani, Ministerul Justiţiei – v – Maria Dicu, Romanian case

ECJ 4 October 2018, C-12/17 (Dicu), Maternity and parental leave, paid leave (RO)

A period of parental leave does not count within the reference period for the purpose of determining an employee’s right to annual leave under Directive 2003/88/EC. Tribunalul Botoşani, Ministerul Justiţiei – v – Maria Dicu, Romanian case

2018/34 Stand-by time must be interpreted in the light of ECJ case law (RO)

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is at the discretion of the competent national court to assess whether periods of stand-by time are working time. In doing so, the court should apply Romanian law as interpreted in the light of ECJ case law.

2018/34 Stand-by time must be interpreted in the light of ECJ case law (RO)

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is at the discretion of the competent national court to assess whether periods of stand-by time are working time. In doing so, the court should apply Romanian law as interpreted in the light of ECJ case law.

2018/32 When is travelling time working time? (NO)

The Norwegian Supreme Court concludes that time spent on a journey ordered by the employer, to and from a place other than the employee’s fixed or habitual place of work, should be considered working time within the meaning of the statutory provisions implementing the Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC). This ruling takes into account the Advisory Opinion of the EFTA Court.

2018/32 When is travelling time working time? (NO)

The Norwegian Supreme Court concludes that time spent on a journey ordered by the employer, to and from a place other than the employee’s fixed or habitual place of work, should be considered working time within the meaning of the statutory provisions implementing the Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC). This ruling takes into account the Advisory Opinion of the EFTA Court.

2018/31 Working as a 'relief parent' for a child protection association falls within the scope of the Working Time Directive and the Finnish Working Hours Act (FI)

In its follow-up judgment to the ECJ's preliminary ruling in the Hälvä case (C-175/16), the Finnish Supreme Court has held that 'relief parents' relieving foster parents in a child protection association on the latter's holidays fall within the scope of the Finnish Working Hours Act even though the work was performed in the homes provided by the association for the children to live in. Therefore, the relief parents were entitled to the rights guaranteed by the Act (subject to the fact that some of their claims had expired).

2018/31 Working as a 'relief parent' for a child protection association falls within the scope of the Working Time Directive and the Finnish Working Hours Act (FI)

In its follow-up judgment to the ECJ's preliminary ruling in the Hälvä case (C-175/16), the Finnish Supreme Court has held that 'relief parents' relieving foster parents in a child protection association on the latter's holidays fall within the scope of the Finnish Working Hours Act even though the work was performed in the homes provided by the association for the children to live in. Therefore, the relief parents were entitled to the rights guaranteed by the Act (subject to the fact that some of their claims had expired).

2018/33 Availability periods: working hours or rest periods? (PO)

The Oporto Court of Appeal held that the employee’s availability 24 hours per day, 6 days per week, breaches the employee’s right to rest. However, such breach does not qualify the availability periods as overtime. The Court also found that the continuous use of a GPS system breached the employee’s right to privacy.

2018/33 Availability periods: working hours or rest periods? (PO)

The Oporto Court of Appeal held that the employee’s availability 24 hours per day, 6 days per week, breaches the employee’s right to rest. However, such breach does not qualify the availability periods as overtime. The Court also found that the continuous use of a GPS system breached the employee’s right to privacy.