projets
ATA/307/1996 ΓÇó Shop closing hours and federal law derogation
ATA/307/1996Cour de justice / Chambre administrative29 mai 1996Dismissed
The court held that Art. 9(2) LHFM is a rule on the closing time of shops and not, in substance, a worker-protection provision. It therefore falls within the reservation of Art. 71(c) LTr and does not conflict with federal law. The court also held that allowing family businesses to close later than large stores does not breach equality of treatment or freedom of commerce and industry, because the legislature primarily pursued a social policy aimed at consumer protection and neighborhood life, which remains admissible despite a limited economic-policy effect.
Art. 9 al. 2 LHFM; nature of the provision and conformity with federal law; equality and freedom of trade and industry. A statutory rule imposing shop closing hours is to be qualified according to its predominant object; if it primarily regulates opening and closing times, it is not transformed into a labour-protection norm merely because it incidentally affects workers. Such a rule falls within the reservation of Art. 71(c) LTr and does not derogate from federal law. Moreover, differentiated closing hours between family enterprises and larger stores do not violate equality of treatment where the legislature pursues a predominantly social objective, such as consumer protection and neighbourhood vitality; a merely incidental economic-policy effect does not render the distinction unconstitutional.
Descripteurs
MAGASIN; HEURE D'OUVERTURE; TRAVAILLEUR; FORCE DEROGATOIRE DU DROIT FEDERAL; DROIT FEDERAL; EGALITE DE TRAITEMENT; LIBERTE DU COMMERCE ET DE L'INDUSTRIE; EP
Normes
LHFM.9 al.2
Résumé
L'art.9 al.2 LHFM est une norme imposant une heure de fermeture des magasins avant d'être une norme de protection des travailleurs. Dans cette mesure, elle entre dans la réserve de l'art.71 litt.c LTr, et ne déroge donc pas au droit fédéral. En permettant aux entreprises familiales de fermer à une heure plus tardive que les grandes surfaces, le législateur à voulu promouvoir avant tout une politique sociale (protection des consommateurs, animation de quartier) qui est admissible même si elle a un léger effet de politique économique. Le principe d'égalité de traitement, eu regard de la libert du commerce et de l'industrie n'est donc pas violé.