European UnionEUR-Lex
Misclassified on-call time alone gives no EU damages right, ECJ rules
Case C-808/24: Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88 confers no individual rights, so misclassified on-call time alone founds no EU damages claim; only breach of the 48-hour limit in Article 6(b) does, paid on actual harm.
By Taxxa AI OyPublished 8 October 2026
On 8 October 2026 the Court of Justice (First Chamber) gave judgment in Case C-808/24 [Zálečta], a Slovak reference about a firefighter and rescue worker, M.R., who served in the fire and rescue service of the municipality of Lučenec. Slovak legislation did not count on-call time spent at the place of work as working time
Europa, and M.R. sought compensation for non-material damage from the Slovak Republic for incorrect transposition of Directive 2003/88Europa.
The Court holds that point 1 of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88, which defines “working time” as any period during which the worker is working, at the employer's disposal and carrying out duties, merely defines the concept for the purposes of the directive. It confers no rights on individuals and imposes no obligationsEuropa, so its breach alone cannot give rise to a right to compensation under EU lawEuropa. The first Francovich condition — that the rule infringed be intended to confer rights — is not satisfied for Article 2(1) taken in isolationEuropa.
By contrast, Article 6(b), which requires Member States to ensure that average working time for each seven-day period, including overtime, does not exceed 48 hoursEuropa, is a rule of EU social law conferring rights on which individuals can rely directly before national courtsEuropa. Where a worker's claim also rests on a breach of Article 6(b), the first State-liability condition is satisfied, provided the referring court confirms that pleadingEuropa.
On the seriousness of the breach, the Court recalls that a manifest and grave disregard of the limits on discretion suffices, and that an infringement in manifest breach of the Court's case-law is sufficiently serious. Its case-law on firefighters was already well established during the period at issue, from 1 August 2020 to 30 June 2023: operational fire-service crews fall within Directive 2003/88Europa, and Article 6(b) precludes exceeding the 48-hour ceiling including on-call timeEuropa. The referring court must verify whether the breach occurred in manifest disregard of that case-law.
On quantification, the Court holds that Directive 2003/88 prescribes no compensation methodEuropa, so reparation falls to national liability law under the principles of equivalence and effectivenessEuropa, must be commensurate with the loss sustainedEuropa, and must reflect the harm actually and specifically suffered with a direct causal link to the Article 6(b) breachEuropa — for example the number of hours worked beyond the 48-hour limit affecting private and family life — not the mere duration of the unlawful legislative situation.
Legal basis: Articles 2(1) and 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time.
Public-sector employers running on-call rotas for fire and rescue crews should check that counted working time, including on-call time at the workplace, keeps average weekly hours within the 48-hour limit.