Case C-282/10

Maribel Dominguez

v

Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique

and

Préfet de la région Centre

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France))

‛Social policy — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Right to paid annual leave — Precondition for entitlement imposed by national rules — Absence of the worker — Length of the leave entitlement based on the nature of the absence — National rules incompatible with Directive 2003/88 — Role of the national court’

Summary of the Judgment

1. Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Right to paid annual leave — National rules which make entitlement to paid annual leave conditional on a minimum period of actual work during a reference period

   (European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7(1))

2. Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Right to paid annual leave — Directive 2003/88 — Article 7(1) — Obligations and powers of the national court — Interpretation of national rules in conformity with EU law — Limits — Possible obligation of the Member State concerned to compensate individuals for loss sustained as a result of domestic law’s being inconsistent with Union law

   (Art. 4(3) TEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7(1))

3. Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Right to paid annual leave — National provision which, depending on the reason for the worker’s absence, provides for a period of paid annual leave equal to or exceeding the minimum period

   (European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7(1))

1.  Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices which make entitlement to paid annual leave conditional on a minimum period of ten days’ or one month’s actual work during the reference period.

   Although Member States are indeed free to lay down, in their domestic legislation, conditions for the exercise and implementation of the right to paid annual leave, they are not entitled to make the very existence of that right subject to any preconditions whatsoever. Thus, the requisite arrangements for implementation and application of the requirements of Directive 93/104 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, codified by Directive 2003/88, may display certain divergences as regards the conditions for exercising the right to paid annual leave, but that directive does not allow Member States to exclude the very existence of a right expressly granted to all workers.

   (see paras 18, 19, 21, operative part 1)

2.  In proceedings between individuals where domestic law is contrary to Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, it is for the national court to determine, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration, in particular the relevant labour law, and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, in order to ensure that that provision is fully effective and achieve an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it, whether it can find an interpretation of that law that allows the worker’s absence due to an accident on the journey to or from work to be treated as being equivalent to one of the situations covered by the relevant provision of national labour law.

   If such an interpretation is not possible, it is for the national court to determine whether, in the light of the legal nature of the respondents in the main proceedings, the direct effect of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 may be relied upon against them.

   If the national court is unable to attain the objective laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, the party injured as a result of domestic law’s being inconsistent with Union law could none the less rely on the judgment of 19 November 1991 in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others in order to obtain, if appropriate, compensation for the damage sustained.

   (see para. 44, operative part 2)

3.  Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which, depending on the reason for the worker’s absence on sick leave, provides for a period of paid annual leave equal to or exceeding the minimum period of four weeks laid down in that directive.

   (see para. 50, operative part 3)