Knowledge

Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz

Source 📝

22: 136: 247:
of all the facts. Those requirements are all the more important given that the worker must be regarded as the weaker party to the employment contract and it is therefore necessary to prevent the employer being in a position to disregard the intentions of the other party to the contract or to impose on that party a restriction of his rights without him having expressly given his consent in that regard…
246:
82. Any derogation from those minimum requirements must therefore be accompanied by all the safeguards necessary to ensure that, if the worker concerned is encouraged to relinquish a social right which has been directly conferred on him by the directive, he must do so freely and with full knowledge
226:
held that workers could not be asked to work 49 hours a week by a collective agreement. They had to opt out individually. As a starting matter it held that the exception for civil servants was not applicable, holding that ‘the civil protection service in the strict sense thus defined, at which the
213:
Workers of the German Red Cross, including Mr Pfeiffer, who served as emergency workers, doing ambulance runs claimed that a collective agreement that set their hours at 49 hours per week violated the Working Time Directive. The Red Cross contended that as emergency workers they were akin to civil
235:, the exclusions from the scope of the directive provided for in Article 1(3) must be interpreted in such a way that their scope is limited to what is strictly necessary in order to safeguard the interests which the exclusions are intended to protect (see, by analogy, the judgment in 317: 227:
provision is aimed, can be clearly distinguished from the activities of emergency workers tending the injured and sick which are at issue in the main proceedings.’ The ‘worker's consent must be given not only individually but also expressly and freely’.
533: 463: 232: 43: 448: 94: 66: 502: 73: 538: 377: 80: 548: 507: 182: 155: 62: 277: 480: 347: 394: 113: 51: 491: 409: 237: 47: 87: 302: 198: 424: 231:
67. Since they are exceptions to the Community system for the organisation of working time put in place by
414: 399: 384: 367: 352: 337: 322: 435: 223: 543: 528: 270: 32: 36: 496: 362: 194: 168: 306: 293: 8: 263: 190: 469: 438: 454: 522: 202: 255: 21: 135: 186: 178:
Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV
465:
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009
214:
servants and thus fell outside the Directive's scope.
520: 450:Russell v Transocean International Resources Ltd 534:Court of Justice of the European Union case law 510:, -, also on the dependent position of workers 271: 503:Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College 285: 50:. Unsourced material may be challenged and 278: 264: 134: 114:Learn how and when to remove this message 379:Robinson-Steele v RD Retail Services Ltd 521: 259: 48:adding citations to reliable sources 15: 13: 481:Working time in the United Kingdom 63:"Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz" 14: 560: 395:HM Revenue and Customs v Stringer 333:Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz 129:Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz 20: 539:2005 in European Union case law 549:European Union labour case law 492:Inequality of bargaining power 410:Landeshauptstadt Kiel v Jaeger 1: 303:Working Time Regulations 1998 199:Working Time Regulations 1998 425:Barber v RJB Mining (UK) Ltd 7: 348:Commission v United Kingdom 251: 217: 10: 565: 436:Employment Rights Act 1996 477: 461: 445: 433: 421: 406: 391: 374: 359: 344: 329: 314: 300: 291: 222:The Grand Chamber of the 197:. It is relevant for the 167: 162: 158:, IRLR 137, 1 CMLR 1123 150: 146:European Court of Justice 142: 133: 128: 514: 208: 286:Sources on working time 497:Working Time Directive 363:R v DTI ex parte BECTU 249: 195:Working Time Directive 169:Working Time Directive 229: 294:Directive 2003/88/EC 193:case concerning the 44:improve this article 191:European labour law 487: 486: 241:, paragraph 89). 174: 173: 124: 123: 116: 98: 556: 466: 451: 380: 280: 273: 266: 257: 256: 233:Directive 93/104 224:Court of Justice 138: 126: 125: 119: 112: 108: 105: 99: 97: 56: 24: 16: 564: 563: 559: 558: 557: 555: 554: 553: 544:2005 in Germany 529:German case law 519: 518: 517: 488: 483: 473: 464: 457: 449: 441: 429: 417: 402: 387: 378: 370: 355: 340: 325: 310: 296: 287: 284: 254: 220: 211: 183:C-397/01-403/01 156:C-397/01-403/01 120: 109: 103: 100: 57: 55: 41: 25: 12: 11: 5: 562: 552: 551: 546: 541: 536: 531: 516: 513: 512: 511: 499: 494: 485: 484: 478: 475: 474: 462: 459: 458: 446: 443: 442: 434: 431: 430: 422: 419: 418: 407: 404: 403: 392: 389: 388: 375: 372: 371: 360: 357: 356: 345: 342: 341: 330: 327: 326: 315: 312: 311: 301: 298: 297: 292: 289: 288: 283: 282: 275: 268: 260: 253: 250: 219: 216: 210: 207: 172: 171: 165: 164: 160: 159: 152: 148: 147: 144: 140: 139: 131: 130: 122: 121: 28: 26: 19: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 561: 550: 547: 545: 542: 540: 537: 535: 532: 530: 527: 526: 524: 509: 505: 504: 500: 498: 495: 493: 490: 489: 482: 476: 471: 467: 460: 456: 453: 452: 444: 440: 437: 432: 427: 426: 420: 416: 412: 411: 405: 401: 397: 396: 390: 386: 382: 381: 373: 369: 365: 364: 358: 354: 350: 349: 343: 339: 335: 334: 328: 324: 320: 319: 318:SIMAP v CSCGV 313: 308: 304: 299: 295: 290: 281: 276: 274: 269: 267: 262: 261: 258: 248: 244: 242: 240: 239: 234: 228: 225: 215: 206: 204: 203:UK labour law 200: 196: 192: 188: 184: 180: 179: 170: 166: 161: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 132: 127: 118: 115: 107: 96: 93: 89: 86: 82: 79: 75: 72: 68: 65: –  64: 60: 59:Find sources: 53: 49: 45: 39: 38: 34: 29:This article 27: 23: 18: 17: 501: 447: 423: 408: 393: 376: 361: 346: 332: 331: 316: 307:SI 1998/1833 245: 243: 236: 230: 221: 212: 177: 176: 175: 110: 101: 91: 84: 77: 70: 58: 42:Please help 30: 523:Categories 74:newspapers 151:Citations 104:June 2020 31:does not 508:C-256/01 439:ss 50-70 415:C-151/02 400:C-520/06 385:C-131/04 368:C-173/99 353:C-484/04 338:C-397/01 323:C-303/98 252:See also 218:Judgment 163:Keywords 506:(2004) 455:UKSC 57 428:ICR 679 413:(2003) 398:(2009) 383:(2006) 366:(2001) 351:(2006) 336:(2005) 321:(2000) 181:(2005) 154:(2005) 88:scholar 52:removed 37:sources 238:Jaeger 187:EU law 185:is an 90:  83:  76:  69:  61:  515:Notes 209:Facts 143:Court 95:JSTOR 81:books 479:see 470:c 22 189:and 67:news 35:any 33:cite 201:in 46:by 525:: 205:. 472:) 468:( 309:) 305:( 279:e 272:t 265:v 117:) 111:( 106:) 102:( 92:· 85:· 78:· 71:· 54:. 40:.

Index


cite
sources
improve this article
adding citations to reliable sources
removed
"Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz"
news
newspapers
books
scholar
JSTOR
Learn how and when to remove this message

C-397/01-403/01
Working Time Directive
C-397/01-403/01
EU law
European labour law
Working Time Directive
Working Time Regulations 1998
UK labour law
Court of Justice
Directive 93/104
Jaeger
v
t
e
Directive 2003/88/EC
Working Time Regulations 1998

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.