”8. Natural and artificial room lighting
8.1. Workplaces must as far as possible receive sufficient natural light and be equipped with artificial lighting adequate for the protection of workers' safety and health.
[…]
10. Windows and skylights
10.1. It must be possible for workers to open, close, adjust or secure windows, skylights and ventilators in a safe manner. When open, they must not be positioned so as to constitute a hazard to workers.”
Effective since December 31, 1992 (two years later for Greece)
I wonder how that is interpreted? Does that exclude buildings older than the code? Does it prevent new buildings from being constructed without these features? It would always be "possible" if enough money was spent on it (and you ignore other considerations, like historical values)...
Where I just had lunch they get natural light whenever a waiter opens the door to bring some food out.
Source: I live in the EU and have been inside a lot of restaurant kitchens in both Germany and Hungary.
The example I know of where it isn’t enforced is of people working inside a refrigerator. I can imagine security conscious jobs and radiology departments also may be exceptions.
It also doesn’t mean all rooms need windows or even natural light. Toilet rooms often don’t, for example, and storage rooms often only have windows high in the walls or in the ceiling (typically way more than in “a room with a view” in Cupertino :-) )
* If the nature of what goes on inside a room conflicts with the presence of windows -- e.g. labs (say, a laser lab)
* if the room isn't meant to be used by humans (e.g. storage closets, server rooms) -- If humans sometimes enter such rooms that's OK, but it can't be their "assigned workplace".
Sunlight is not only good for morale, but also good for health.
I believe that office workers are required to have actual windows and honestly I don't think even the employers think it's right to have windowless offices
There has to be a source of natural daylight and there must be clear windows that you can see through. Of course there are always exceptions, but they are just that.
https://arbejdstilsynet.dk/da/regler/indeklima/belysning-og-...
As an employee, I hate this rule and would love a windowless office. Right now, I just keep the curtains closed all day.
I can't really imagine not being look out a windows during the day. Also I think I'd feel trapped without windows, not that I can just jump out my 3rd. floor window.
Sunlight is nice if I'm going to be outside admiring nature, but it's crap for reading, playing video games, any number of activities I want to do at home.
The cheap place I'll be staying on vacation in a couple of weeks offered a "free upgrade" to a room with a window and I was like "I don't understand - what would I in theory see out of this window?" because it's in a city centre, and obviously as a tourist I shall go out and look at museums and galleries and stuff, I shan't be sat there all day looking out the window, so it seems pointless. The other person I'm going with likes windows, so they'd already paid a little bit extra to have a window anyway. Crazy.
On a side note I don't think I'd stay in a hotel/motel room without windows, that just seems creepy. For the same reason I don't book room on ferries without windows, even though I'd just see the water.
I'm not sure whether they were talking about EU regulations or about the regulations of specific european countries.
Edit: typos
Eg http://www.right-of-light.co.uk/services/calculations-and-re...
Sounds like backdoor NIMBYism
It's possible to circumvent this by putting an office into space that was designed as storage or as factory. But you will then usually also lack toilets, kitchen and decent air condition. If you do the renovation to get those things and abide by the law, you will have to arrange a window too.
In practice some individuals in overstaffed offices will work from a space that was originally storage, then negotiation room and now a shitty office room.
3: pillows may be considered passive weapons but that is irrelevant unless it is used as such or carried in a context where it is likely intended to be used as such (e.g. while participating in a demonstration). That said, assaulting random people in public with a pillow is probably still illegal because it involves assaulting random people (albeit with a weapon that's less likely to cause permanent injuries directly).
5: Both drilling and throwing bottles into containers cause noise pollution. It's not the act itself that's verboten, it's the noise it causes.
6: This is the same thing as 5. The law doesn't give an exhaustive list of activities that might be too damn noisy so I have no idea where these come from.
8: Calling a police officer "du" is a sign of disrespect. If you're new to the language and struggling with the distinction, the police officer will likely correct you or ignore it. Treating police officers disrespectfully is a misdemeanor and addressing them as "du" is one way to be disrespectful.
9: This is a widely held misconception. The "Deutschlandlied" is not illegal. The national anthem only has one verse and that's the third verse of the Deutschlandlied (or actually "Lied der Deutschen"). You can still sing the entire song but if you were going for singing the national anthem, you'll spend two verses singing something that isn't the national anthem. The reason people will still look at you in disgust is the same reason the anthem only uses the third verse: we don't take to jingoism too kindly after WW2.
10: I'm pretty sure it's not a law that you can't drink Export or non-Munich beer at the Oktoberfest, considering the Oktoberfest is in essence just a private event, but it's Bavaria so I'm not sure of this one.
"Passive weapons" are not illegal; it is illegal to bring them to a demonstration with the intent to use them to avoid police interventions.
If you bring a shield to a demonstration it means you're expecting to be attacked, which either means you don't trust the police to protect you from aggressive counter-demonstrators (which presumably shouldn't be a reasonable concern) or you intend to start a fight.
I wouldn't say the worry is entirely misplaced, but the general idea is that if you were allowed to bring equipment that protects you from police violence the police would have to apply more violence to subdue you and nobody wants that.
IMO police violence and negligence should be prosecuted more thoroughly (see G20 vs the failure of police to uphold the law during nazi demonstrations in Chemnitz recently) but I don't disagree with the idea in general because at least it means we don't have stand-offs between white supremacists and black activists carrying (semi-automatic) assault rifles like recently in Texas, or shield formations like in Charlottesville.
EDIT: It's the same thing as with gun ownership, really: if guns are so widespread that you have to assume every suspect packs heat, you have to treat every suspect as a potential shooter and be ready to shoot first. If a cop stops your car in Germany, there's almost no chance a weapon will be involved.
And everywhere else, too, since “the State” is simply a label for whatever aggregate of actors exercises a monopoly on legitimate use of force.
I realize it's not the only reason possible to take body armor to a demonstration, but it is the reason for most people wearing them.
source in French: https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2012/qSEQ121002524.html
A lot of European countries, as far as I know. Not sure if it's all of them. But others have replied, so we know about Denmark (and it's the same in the other Scandinavian countries, probably all the Nordic countries, i.e. Scandinavia + Finland and Iceland), Germany, possibly Spain (not sure), Netherlands, ..