24 The alleged violation of Article 2§4: A - The complainant organisation 108. The MFHR argues that lignite miners are particularly exposed to high levels of air pollution, especially in the form of fine particles, and that irrespective of their place of residence they are more subject to rhinitis than other categories of worker. In addition, high concentrations of mineral substances in fly ash are considered responsible for pneumoconiosis among coal miners. 109. The MFHR maintains that the state has not met its obligations under Article 2§4, either directly, as law-maker, since lignite miners have no statutory entitlement to reduced working hours or additional paid holidays, or indirectly, as de facto manager of DEH since it has failed in its duty to include such provisions in its employment contracts, whether individual or collective. B – The Government 110. The Government states that the internal prevention and protection department of the DEH, the ESYPP, has a fully equipped network of measurement units for harmful substances and where excessive values have been recorded, protective measures have been introduced in accordance with the legislation. In addition, individual means of protection are available for workers exposed to dust and more and more use is being made of them. 111. According to the Government, miners have the statutory protection required by Article 2§4. Firstly, because of the difficult weather conditions in which they work, they are classified as performing arduous or hazardous work and the majority of the mining staff employed by the DEH are entitled to retire at the lowest age limit. Secondly, because their working conditions are the most difficult, those working shifts are entitled to five additional days' leave per year. Thirdly, collective agreements grant special bonuses to the majority of DEH mining staff. 112. Finally, the Government argues that reductions in working hours and supplementary leave for DEH employees working in lignite mines may be included in collective agreements, whose provisions are determined exclusively by the social partners. In the case of the DEH, the unions have never submitted such claims.