United Kingdom v Council of the European Union: ECJ 12 Nov 1996

A directive limiting the maximum work hours for all employees was validly made under art 118a as a Health and Safety measure.
LMA

  1. Measures appear initially to have derived from policies of job creation and increased employment.
  2. John Major’s government saw the initiatives (together with other provisions as part of Social Chapter) as measures which would lead to unemployment and expected an unsympathetic response from business organisations.
  3. Government opt-out of Social Chapter of Maastricht Treaty (TEU)
  4. Working Time Directive introduced some of provisions of Social Chapter in the guise of health and safety. The measures were adopted as a health and safety measure on the basis of Art.118a EC

What were the implications of this route to adoption?
Art.118aEC
(Council) Qualified majority voting – (European Parliament) Co-operation procedure – although the Council ultimately has the final say, it can only over-rule Parliament (and the Commission) if it acts unanimously) as opposed to
Art.100EC – (Council) unanimous voting – (European Parliament) Consultation procedure – this procedure requires that the Council consult the Parliament before it adopts an act. Parliament’s views must be considered but have no binding effect.
The UK challenged the Directive on various grounds

  1. Defective legal basis (lack of competence)
  2. Breach of the principle of proportionality
  3. Misuse of powers
  4. Infringement of an essential procedural requirements.

The ECJ concluded that the UK’s application was unfounded apart from one provision The ECJ annulled the second sentence of Art. 5 of the Council Directive concerning minimum rest periods to include Sundays – could not be justified on basis of health and safety measure. The ECJ dismissed the remainder of the UK’s application.

Citations:

Times 21-Nov-1996, C-84/94, [1997] IRLR 30, [1996] EUECJ C-84/94, [1997] ICR 443

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Treaty Article 118a

Cited by:

Cited – Revenue and Customs v Stringer, Ainsworth and Others HL 10-Jun-2009
In each case, the employee had retired after long term sickness. The Employment tribunal had upheld their ability to claim arrears of sickness pay arising under the 1998 Regulations, as an unlawful deduction from their wages. They now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Employment, Health and Safety

Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.161312