Review of Labour Law Practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2025

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 11 September 2025 in Case C-38/24 Bervidi

The prohibition of indirect discrimination on grounds of disability also applies to an employee who suffers such discrimination because of the assistance he provides to his child with a disability.

In this case, the Court of Justice ruled that, in order to ensure the principle of equality between employees and compliance with the prohibition of indirect discrimination, an employer must provide appropriate conditions for an employee who, although not disabled, cares for their disabled child by providing them with the care necessary for their condition, provided that such conditions do not impose a disproportionate burden on the employer.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 4 September 2025 in Case C-203/24 Hakamp

In this case, the Court of Justice ruled on the social security rules applicable to a person working in several Member States and clarified the circumstances to be considered when applying the social security provisions of one Member State.

The Court of Justice also stated that, in order to assess the overall situation of a person who normally works under an employment contract in two or more Member States and to determine whether he performs a substantial part of his activities in the Member State of residence, it is necessary to take into account his future situation, as it is likely to be over the next twelve calendar months.

The Court of Justice stated that, for a person to be considered to carry out a substantial part of their activities under an employment contract in their Member State of residence, the threshold of 25% of working time and/or remuneration in that Member State must be reached. The criteria for working time and/or remuneration cannot be compensated for by applying other criteria.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 June 2025 in Case C-219/24 Tallinna linn

The Court of Justice recalled that employers must take the measures necessary to protect the safety and health of workers, including the prevention of occupational risks, which involves avoiding risks, assessing risks that cannot be avoided, and establishing a coherent general prevention policy covering technology, the organisation of work, working conditions, social relations and the impact of factors related to the working environment.

Directive 2000/54 imposes an obligation on employers to offer vaccination to the workers concerned where an effective vaccine is available. However, that directive does not specify whether and in what circumstances employers may oblige workers to be vaccinated.

Therefore, European Union law does not preclude national legislation which allows an employer to require employees with whom it has an employment contract to be vaccinated if they are exposed to a biological risk.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of October 30, 2025, in Case C-373/24 Ramavić

In this case, the Court of Justice summarised its previous case law and clarified when on-call periods should be classified as “working time” under the provisions of Directive 2003/88.

The Court of Justice pointed out that the concepts of ‘working time’ and ‘rest time’ are part of EU law and that there is no intermediate category between them, which must therefore be defined on objective criteria.

First, with regard to the period of standby duty at the workplace, the Court of Justice has already ruled that the decisive factor in determining whether the constituent elements of the concept of ‘working time’ is that the worker must be physically present at the place specified by the employer and be available to him so that he can start work immediately if necessary.

Second, with regard to the period of passive on-call duty, the Court of Justice has ruled that, although the worker is not required to remain at the workplace during the period of passive on-call duty, that period must also be regarded as “working time” when, due to the objective and very significant impact of the restrictions imposed on the employee on his ability to pursue his personal and social interests, it differs from the period during which the employee is only required to be at the employer’s disposal so that the employer can contact him.

Thus, a period of stand-by time during which the worker may, taking into account the reasonable time period allowed for him or her to resume his or her professional activities, plan his or her personal and social activities does not, a priori, constitute ‘working time’, within the meaning of Directive 2003/88.

Conversely, a period of stand-by time during which the time limit within which the worker is required to return to work is limited to a few minutes must, in principle, be regarded, in its entirety, as ‘working time’, within the meaning of that directive, since in that case the worker is, in practice, strongly dissuaded from planning any kind of recreational activity, even of a short duration.