Criminal proceedings against X. [1996] EUECJ C-74/95 (12 December 1996)

Criminal proceedings against X. [1996] EUECJ C-74/95 (12 December 1996)

The Court held that the definition of 'worker' under Article 2(c) of Directive 90/270/EEC is for Member States to specify, and the Directive does not itself define the threshold for 'habitual use.' Article 9(1) requires regular eye and eyesight tests for all workers covered by the Directive, and Article 9(2) entitles workers to an ophthalmological examination whenever necessary as shown by such tests. Articles 4 and 5 require all workstations as defined in Article 2(b) to comply with all minimum requirements in the Annex, regardless of whether they are actually used by workers as defined in Article 2(c). The Court also reaffirmed that directives cannot of themselves create or aggravate...

Citation
[1996] EUECJ C-74/95
Parties
Referring Authority (c 74/95): Procura della Repubblica presso la Pretura Circondariale di Torino; Referring Court (c 129/95): Pretura Circondariale di Torino; Defendants (criminal Proceedings): Persons Unknown
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
12 December 1996
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Ruling (joined Cases C 74/95 and C 129/95) / Judgment on Preliminary Reference
Outcome
Questions from the Procura della Repubblica declared inadmissible; questions from the Pretura Circondariale answered as set out in the judgment.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Directive 90/270/eec, Minimum Safety and Health Requirements for Work With Display Screen Equipment, Definition of 'worker' Under EU Law, Employer Obligations Regarding Workstations, Medical Examinations for Workers, Criminal Liability for Breach of Implementing Legislation
European Union Law Labour Law Criminal Law Interpretation of Directive 90/270/eec Minimum Safety and Health Requirements for Work With Display Screen Equipment Definition of 'worker' Under EU Law Employer Obligations Regarding Workstations Medical Examinations for Workers +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Procura della Repubblica presso la Pretura Circondariale di Torino

Referring Authority (c 74/95)

Pretura Circondariale di Torino

Referring Court (c 129/95)

Persons Unknown

Defendants (criminal Proceedings)

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling (joined Cases C 74/95 and C 129/95) / Judgment on Preliminary Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the definition of 'worker' in Article 2(c) of Directive 90/270/EEC includes workers who use display screens less than four consecutive hours daily or not every day of the week
  2. 2 Whether Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 90/270/EEC require regular eye and eyesight tests and ophthalmological examinations for all workers or only certain categories
  3. 3 Whether Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 90/270/EEC require all workstations to comply with all minimum requirements in the Annex, regardless of actual use by workers as defined in Article 2(c)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the definition of 'worker' under Article 2(c) of Directive 90/270/EEC is for Member States to specify, and the Directive does not itself define the threshold for 'habitual use.' Article 9(1) requires regular eye and eyesight tests for all workers covered by the Directive, and Article 9(2) entitles workers to an ophthalmological examination whenever necessary as shown by such tests. Articles 4 and 5 require all workstations as defined in Article 2(b) to comply with all minimum requirements in the Annex, regardless of whether they are actually used by workers as defined in Article 2(c). The Court also reaffirmed that directives cannot of themselves create or aggravate...

Court Disposition

Questions from the Procura della Repubblica declared inadmissible; questions from the Pretura Circondariale answered as set out in the judgment.

Orders

  • Article 9(1) of Directive 90/270/EEC requires regular eye tests for all workers to whom the Directive applies; Article 9(2) entitles workers to an ophthalmological examination whenever necessary as shown by such tests.
  • Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 90/270/EEC require all workstations as defined in Article 2(b) to comply with all minimum requirements in the Annex, even if not used by workers as defined in Article 2(c).