IN YET another ruling set to fan the fires of British Euroscepticism, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has found against British attempts to block a directive limiting the working week to 48 hours.
The opinion from Mr Philippe Leger finds that the EU Council of Ministers was within its rights to pass the working time directive in November 1993 as the issue genuinely involves the health and safety of workers and thus a competence arising from Article 118 of the Single European Act.
Significantly, Mr Leger rejected the British contention that the health and safety provisions of Article 118, which does not require unanimity voting, applied only to specific situations warranting special safeguards. The provision had to be interpreted "broadly", allowing the measures to benefit workers as a whole, he said.
Ironically, if the opinion is upheld, Britain may find that by taking the issue to the court it may have effectively extended the legal scope for future directives under the article.
The opinions of advocates general are not binding on the full Luxembourg court, which is expected to rule definitively in a few weeks, but are usually a reliable indication of what way it will rule.
The directive sets out a maximum working week of 48 hours beyond which an employer cannot require an employee to work without prior agreement between the social partners. Exceptions' are made, however, for some professions like junior doctors. It also provides for mandatory rest breaks in shifts over six hours, limitations on Sunday working, and minimum annual holidays.
The directive's provisions had been significantly watered down before the Council decision on the insistence of the British, which then abstained on the otherwise unanimous vote. Its decision then to challenge the directive in the ECJ provoked anger among fellow member states.
Yesterday a spokeswoman for the Commission expressed cautious satisfaction at the opinion, while warning that the court bad in the recent Bosman football transfer case taken a different view from that of the Advocate General.
