监测工作时间和工作时间指令2003/88/EC:一种有目的的方法

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW European Labour Law Journal Pub Date : 2022-12-15 DOI:10.1177/20319525221141621
V. Leccese
{"title":"监测工作时间和工作时间指令2003/88/EC:一种有目的的方法","authors":"V. Leccese","doi":"10.1177/20319525221141621","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) decision of 14 May 2019 in Case C-55/18, CCOO represents an important milestone in the Court's case law on working time. This decision raises specific questions about the adequacy of national laws and offers interpreters an opportunity to reflect on certain challenges related to the measurement of working time. The aim of this contribution is to highlight the significance of the CJEU's decision and its implications for national legislative frameworks. After providing a brief analysis of the ruling, the article focuses on the following aspects: how to ensure that working time is accurately recorded for the purpose of enforcing the Working Time Directive, and in the light of lessons learnt from some national experiences (section 2); the usefulness of the obligation to measure working time within the context of the burden of proof in individual disputes (section 3); under which conditions Member States can take advantage of the leeway provided by the Court in the implementation of the principle of compulsory monitoring of working time, especially for activities for which working time is not measured and/or can be (pre)determined by the workers themselves (section 4); and the challenges posed by teleworking and agile work (section 5).","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monitoring working time and Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC: A purposive approach\",\"authors\":\"V. Leccese\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20319525221141621\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) decision of 14 May 2019 in Case C-55/18, CCOO represents an important milestone in the Court's case law on working time. This decision raises specific questions about the adequacy of national laws and offers interpreters an opportunity to reflect on certain challenges related to the measurement of working time. The aim of this contribution is to highlight the significance of the CJEU's decision and its implications for national legislative frameworks. After providing a brief analysis of the ruling, the article focuses on the following aspects: how to ensure that working time is accurately recorded for the purpose of enforcing the Working Time Directive, and in the light of lessons learnt from some national experiences (section 2); the usefulness of the obligation to measure working time within the context of the burden of proof in individual disputes (section 3); under which conditions Member States can take advantage of the leeway provided by the Court in the implementation of the principle of compulsory monitoring of working time, especially for activities for which working time is not measured and/or can be (pre)determined by the workers themselves (section 4); and the challenges posed by teleworking and agile work (section 5).\",\"PeriodicalId\":41157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221141621\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Labour Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221141621","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧盟法院于2019年5月14日对案件C-55/18,CCOO作出裁决,这是法院关于工作时间的判例法中的一个重要里程碑。这一决定提出了关于国家法律是否充分的具体问题,并为口译员提供了一个反思与工作时间计量有关的某些挑战的机会。这篇文章的目的是强调欧盟法院的决定的重要性及其对国家立法框架的影响。在对裁决进行简要分析后,文章重点关注以下几个方面:如何确保准确记录工作时间,以执行《工作时间指令》,并结合从一些国家经验中吸取的教训(第2节);在个人纠纷的举证责任范围内衡量工作时间的义务是否有用(第3节);在何种条件下,成员国可以利用法院提供的余地,执行强制监测工作时间的原则,特别是对于工作时间没有衡量和/或可以由工人自己(预先)确定的活动(第4节);以及远程工作和敏捷工作带来的挑战(第5节)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Monitoring working time and Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC: A purposive approach
The Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) decision of 14 May 2019 in Case C-55/18, CCOO represents an important milestone in the Court's case law on working time. This decision raises specific questions about the adequacy of national laws and offers interpreters an opportunity to reflect on certain challenges related to the measurement of working time. The aim of this contribution is to highlight the significance of the CJEU's decision and its implications for national legislative frameworks. After providing a brief analysis of the ruling, the article focuses on the following aspects: how to ensure that working time is accurately recorded for the purpose of enforcing the Working Time Directive, and in the light of lessons learnt from some national experiences (section 2); the usefulness of the obligation to measure working time within the context of the burden of proof in individual disputes (section 3); under which conditions Member States can take advantage of the leeway provided by the Court in the implementation of the principle of compulsory monitoring of working time, especially for activities for which working time is not measured and/or can be (pre)determined by the workers themselves (section 4); and the challenges posed by teleworking and agile work (section 5).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
28.60%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Anti-discrimination cases decided by the Court of Justice of the EU in 2023 Resocialisation through prisoner remuneration: The unconstitutionally low remuneration of working prisoners in Germany Work in prison: Reintegration or exclusion and exploitation? Beyond profit: A model framework for ethical and feasible private prison labour Minding the gap? Blind spots in the ILO's and the EU's perspective on anti-forced labour policy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1