Landeshauptstadt Kiel v. Jaeger
European Court of Justice
C-151/02 (2003)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
A German doctor (defendant) was a surgeon at a hospital (plaintiff). The doctor worked six periods of on-call duty each month. On-call duty would begin after a normal working day. The period of on-call duty was 16 hours during the week and the entire day on weekends. When on-call, the doctor was required to stay at the hospital, where he had a room with a bed and could sleep in between being called to duty. Under this arrangement, the doctor was at the hospital for long periods without actually performing any services. A lawsuit arose. A conflict arose between European Union law and German law. Under European Union law, working time included “any period during which the worker is working, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his activity or duties.” Rest periods were any periods that were not working times. But under German law, there were three categories of work: readiness for work, on-call service, and standby. Only readiness for work was full working time, whereas the other two categories were rest times (except when an employee was performing services). In addition, European Union law provided for daily minimum rest periods, rest breaks, and maximum weekly hours, including overtime. German courts referred the matter to the European Court of Justice to resolve the conflict.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.