Introduction
On 8 October 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) delivered its judgment in case C-808/24, M. R. v Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky, following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Lučenec, a Slovak district court. The case sits at the intersection of EU social policy, the protection of workers' health and safety, and the doctrine of state liability for breaches of EU law.
The judgment addresses a set of interconnected legal questions that are of considerable practical importance for workers in emergency services across the European Union. Specifically, it concerns whether on-call time spent by firefighters at the workplace must be classified as 'working time' within the meaning of Directive 2003/88/EC, whether the maximum weekly working time limit established by that directive was infringed, and, if so, under what conditions and by what method a worker may obtain compensation for non-material damage suffered as a result of that infringement by a Member State.
This article examines the legal framework and the key issues raised by the referring court, as they emerge from the judgment itself.
Legal framework: Directive 2003/88/EC and the concept of working time
Directive 2003/88/EC, commonly known as the Working Time Directive, establishes minimum requirements for the organisation of working time in order to protect the safety and health of workers throughout the European Union. It applies across a broad range of sectors and occupations, including, in principle, public services such as fire and rescue services.
Point 1 of Article 2 of the directive defines 'working time' as any period during which the worker is working, at the employer's disposal, and carrying out his or her activity or duties, in accordance with national laws and/or practice. This definition has been the subject of extensive interpretation by the Court of Justice over the years, particularly in relation to on-call or standby arrangements.
Article 6(b) of the directive sets a maximum average weekly working time of 48 hours, including overtime. This ceiling is a fundamental guarantee of the directive and is directly linked to the objective of protecting workers' health and safety. The judgment in case C-808/24 engages directly with both of these provisions in the context of firefighters performing on-call duties at their workplace.
The classification of on-call time at the workplace
A central issue in the case is whether on-call time spent by firefighters at the workplace — that is, time during which they are required to be present at the fire station and available to respond to calls, but during which they may not be actively engaged in duties — falls within the definition of 'working time' under point 1 of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC.
The judgment addresses the situation where such on-call time at the workplace was not included in working time under the applicable national arrangements. This exclusion is directly relevant to the question of whether the maximum weekly working time limit under Article 6(b) was exceeded, since the total hours recorded for the worker would differ significantly depending on whether on-call periods are counted.
The Court's engagement with this issue reflects a well-established line of reasoning in EU law: where a worker is required to be physically present at a place determined by the employer and to remain available to provide services immediately if needed, the entire period of that presence is generally to be regarded as working time, regardless of whether the worker is actively engaged throughout. The judgment in case C-808/24 applies this framework to the specific circumstances of firefighters performing on-call duties at the workplace.
State liability for infringement of EU law: conditions and principles
The judgment also addresses the right of the worker to obtain compensation for non-material damage from the Slovak Republic as a Member State, on the ground that the failure to classify on-call time as working time and the consequent breach of Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC constituted an infringement of EU law giving rise to state liability.
State liability for breaches of EU law is a foundational principle of the EU legal order. The judgment examines the conditions under which such liability arises and the manner in which compensation for damage — including non-material damage — is to be assessed and calculated in the context of an infringement of the maximum weekly working time limit.
Two overarching principles govern the procedural and substantive rules applicable to such claims at national level: the principle of equivalence, which requires that claims based on EU law are not treated less favourably than comparable claims based on national law, and the principle of effectiveness, which requires that national rules do not render the exercise of rights conferred by EU law practically impossible or excessively difficult. The judgment in case C-808/24 considers how these principles apply to the method of calculating compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the firefighter as a result of the infringement of Article 6(b) of the directive.
Significance for workers in emergency services
The judgment is of particular relevance to workers in emergency and public safety services, such as firefighters, who routinely perform on-call duties at their workplace. The question of how such periods are classified under the Working Time Directive has direct consequences for the total number of hours recorded as working time and, therefore, for compliance with the maximum weekly working time limit.
Where on-call time at the workplace is not counted as working time, workers may in practice be required to be available for periods that, when properly classified, would exceed the 48-hour weekly average established by Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88/EC. The judgment in case C-808/24 addresses the legal consequences of such a situation, including the availability of compensation for non-material damage.
The case also illustrates the role of the preliminary ruling mechanism in ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of EU law across Member States. By referring the questions to the Court of Justice, the Okresný súd Lučenec enabled the Court to provide authoritative guidance on issues that may arise in similar circumstances in other Member States where comparable on-call arrangements exist in emergency services.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 October 2026 in case C-808/24, M. R. v Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky, addresses important questions concerning the scope of the concept of working time under Directive 2003/88/EC, the protection afforded by the maximum weekly working time limit in Article 6(b), and the conditions and methods for obtaining compensation for non-material damage resulting from a Member State's infringement of EU law.
By examining the classification of on-call time at the workplace for firefighters and the application of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness to compensation claims, the judgment contributes to the ongoing development of EU law in the field of working time and state liability. Employers, public authorities, and workers in sectors involving on-call arrangements should be attentive to the guidance provided by the Court in this judgment.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications