EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62023CN0531

Case C-531/23, Loredas: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 5 July 2023 — HJ v US, MU

OJ C, C/2023/1284, 11.12.2023, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1284/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1284/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

Series C


C/2023/1284

11.12.2023

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 5 July 2023 — HJ v US, MU

(Case C-531/23, Loredas) (1)

(C/2023/1284)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: HJ

Respondents: US, MU

Question referred

Must Articles 3, 5, 6, 16, 17, 17(4)(b), 19 and 22 of Directive 2003/88 (2) on the organisation of working time, Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in the light of the EU case-law (judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 May 2019, C-55/18 (3)), Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 3(2) of the EC Treaty, Articles 1 and 4 of Directive 2010/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity, (4) Articles 1, 4 and 5 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, (5) and Articles 2 and 3 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, (6) also read in the light of the EU case-law (judgment of the Court of Justice of 2[4] February 202[2], C-389/20 (7)), be interpreted as precluding a legislative provision such as Article 9(3) of Real Decreto (Royal Decree) 1620/2011, which exempts an employer from the obligation to keep a record of a worker’s working time?


(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  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 (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

(3)  Judgment of 14 May 2019, CCOO (C-55/18, EU:C:2019:402).

(4)   OJ 2010 L 80, p. 1.

(5)   OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.

(6)   OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

(7)  Judgment of 24 February 2022, TGSS (Domestic worker unemployment) (C-389/20, EU:C:2022:120).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1284/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)


Top