04 Juil European Court of Justice – july 2024
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Organisation of working time – Directive 2003/88/EC – Article 9(1)(a) – Obligation to assess the health of night workers – Employer’s failure to comply with that obligation – Right to compensation – Need to establish the existence of specific harm.
ECJ, 20 June 2024, C 367/23, EA v. Artemis security SAS.
Link
Article 9(1)(a) 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 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, in the event of an infringement by the employer of the national provisions implementing that provision of EU law and providing that night workers are entitled to a free health assessment before their assignment and thereafter at regular intervals, the right of the night worker concerned to compensation for that infringement is subject to the condition that that worker provides proof of the harm caused to him or her as a result of the infringement.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Freedom to provide services – Articles 56 and 57 TFEU – Posting of third-country workers by an undertaking of one Member State to carry out works in another Member State – Duration exceeding 90 days in a 180-day period – Obligation for the posted third-country workers to be holders of residence permits in the host Member State in the event that services are provided for more than three months – Limitation of the period of validity of the residence permits issued – Amount of the fees relating to the application for a residence permit – Restriction on the freedom to provide services – Overriding reasons in the public interest – Proportionality.
ECJ, 20 June 2024, SN and Others v Staatssecretaris van Justitie.
Link
Articles 56 and 57 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that third-country workers who are posted to a Member State by a service provider established in another Member State must not automatically be recognised as having a ‘derived right of residence’, either in the Member State where they are employed or in the Member State to which they are posted.
Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of legislation of a Member State which provides that, where an undertaking established in another Member State carries out, in that first Member State, a supply of services the duration of which exceeds three months, that undertaking is obliged to obtain in the host Member State a residence permit for each third-country worker which it intends to post to that first Member State, and which provides that, in order to obtain that permit, that undertaking is to declare beforehand the supply of services in respect of which those workers are to be posted and is to communicate to the authorities of the host Member State the residence permits which those workers hold in the Member State where it is established, as well as their employment contracts.
Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a piece of legislation of a Member State pursuant to which (i) the period of validity of the residence permit which may be granted to a third-country worker posted to that Member State may not, in any event, exceed a period determined by the piece of national legislation in question, which may thus be shorter than the period needed to perform the service for which that worker is posted, (ii) the period of validity of that residence permit is limited to the period of validity of the work and residence permit held by the person concerned in the Member State in which the service provider is established, and (iii) the issuing of the residence permit requires the payment of fees in an amount greater than the amount of the fees payable for the issuing of a certificate of lawful residence to a Union citizen, provided that: first of all, the initial period of validity of that permit is not manifestly too short to meet the needs of the majority of service providers; next, it is possible to renew the residence permit without having to meet excessive formal requirements; and, lastly, that amount approximately corresponds to the administrative costs generated by the processing of an application for such a permit.
