CJEU decision. For employees who work with a monitor, the employer must provide them with glasses

The decision came after an employee of the Cluj Immigration Service addressed the court because the General Inspectorate for Immigration did not reimburse him the cost of the glasses he needed after his eyesight was damaged as a result of working in front of a monitor.

According to VeDemJust.ro, in case C‑392/21, the CJEU decided, on December 22, that the eyeglasses intended for those who work with a monitor must be provided to the workers by the employer or the employer must reimburse the related expenses, but not by paying a general increase in the worker’s salary, reports news.ro.

The subject of the case was a request for a preliminary decision based on Article 267 TFEU by the Cluj Court of Appeal. The request was made in the context of a dispute between TJ, an employee of the Cluj county Immigration Service, and the General Inspectorate for Immigration, in connection with the rejection by the IGI of the request for reimbursement of expenses related to the purchase of glasses, presented by TJ.

The decision states that TJ carries out his activity by working at the monitor, stating that working at the monitor and other risk factors, such as “discontinuous visible” light, the absence of natural light and neuropsychic overload, caused a strong deterioration of his vision, so that he would had to, on the recommendation of a specialist doctor, change his glasses to correct the decrease in his visual acuity. Claiming that the Romanian national health insurance system did not provide for the reimbursement of the amount of 2,629 lei, representing the equivalent of the cost of the eyeglasses, TJ requested the General Inspectorate to reimburse him the amount, but the request was rejected.

Later, TJ notified the Cluj Court with an action aimed at obliging the General Inspectorate to pay the mentioned amount, but the court rejected the action because the conditions for obtaining the requested reimbursement were not met, insofar as Article 14 of Government Decision no. 1028/2006 would not confer the right to reimbursement of the cost of a special correction device, but only to the provision of such a device if its use were considered necessary.

TJ appealed against this decision to the Cluj Court of Appeal, which is the referring court, requesting its annulment and a review of the merits of the litigation.

“The referring court considers that, in order to resolve the dispute before it, it is necessary to interpret the notion of “special correctional devices”, which appears in Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270, which is not defined by it. It appreciates that the notion in question should be interpreted in the sense that it includes eyeglasses, to the extent that they are necessary for the employee who suffers from a deterioration of vision caused by his working conditions”, the decision also states.

So. The CJEU decided that Article 9 paragraph (3) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum health and safety conditions for working at the monitor [a cincea directivă individuală în sensul articolului 16 alineatul (1) din Directiva 87/391/CEE] must be interpreted in the sense that “special correction devices”, provided by this provision, include eyeglasses that are specifically aimed at correcting and preventing visual difficulties that are related to an activity involving monitor equipment. On the other hand, these “special correction devices” are not limited to devices used exclusively in a professional setting.

Also, Article 9 paragraphs (3) and (4) of Directive 90/270 must be interpreted in the sense that the employer’s obligation to provide the workers in question with a special correction device, provided for in this provision, can be fulfilled either by the direct supply of the respective device by the latter, or by reimbursement of the necessary expenses incurred by the worker, but not by paying a general salary increase to the worker, the CJEU established.