08 Jan European Court of Justice – January 2025
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2011/98/EU – Rights of third-country workers who hold a single permit – Article 12 – Right to equal treatment – Social security – National legislation determining entitlements to family benefits – Legislation excluding the taking into account of the minor children of the single permit holder for lack of evidence that they have entered the national territory lawfully.
ECJ, 19 December 2024, Case C 664/23, Caisse d’allocations familiales des Hauts-de-Seine.
Source
Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, for the purposes of determining the entitlement to social security benefits of a third-country national holding a single permit, the children born in a third country who are dependent on him or her are taken into account only if they can prove that they have entered the territory of that Member State lawfully.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Organisation of working time – Daily and weekly rest – Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Directive 2003/88/EC – Articles 3, 5, 6, 16, 17, 19 and 22 – Requirement to establish a system enabling the duration of time worked by domestic workers to be measured – Derogation – National legislation exempting domestic workers from the obligation to record actual time worked.
ECJ, 19 December 2024, Case C 531/23, Loredas.
Source
Articles 3, 5 and 6 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, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, and its interpretation by the national courts or an administrative practice based on such legislation, under which domestic employers are exempt from the obligation to establish a system enabling the duration of time worked by domestic workers to be measured, thereby depriving those workers of the possibility of determining objectively and reliably the number of hours worked and their distribution over time.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Article 88(1) and (2) – Processing in the context of employment – Employees’ personal data – More specific rules provided for by a Member State pursuant to that Article 88 – Obligation to comply with Article 5, Article 6(1) and Article 9(1) and (2) of that regulation – Processing on the basis of a collective agreement – Margin of discretion of the parties to the collective agreement as regards the necessity of the processing of personal data provided for by that agreement – Scope of judicial review.
ECJ, 19 December 2024, Case C 65/23, K GmbH.
Source
Article 88(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation),
must be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law which concerns the processing of personal data for the purposes of employment relationships and has been adopted pursuant to Article 88(1) of that regulation must have the effect of requiring its addressees to comply not only with the requirements arising from Article 88(2) of that regulation, but also with those arising from Article 5, Article 6(1) and Article 9(1) and (2) thereof.
Article 88(1) of Regulation 2016/679
must be interpreted as meaning that, where a collective agreement falls within the scope of that provision, the margin of discretion that the parties to that agreement have to determine whether the processing of personal data is ‘necessary’, within the meaning of Article 5, Article 6(1) and Article 9(1) and (2) of that regulation, does not prevent the national court from carrying out a full judicial review in that regard.
