# C_2004217EN.01001301.xml

| 28.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Civil Division, by order of that court dated 15 June 2004, in the cases of Michael Jason Clarke against Frank Staddon Ltd and J.C. Caulfield, C.F. Caulfield and K.V. Barnes against Marshalls Clay Products Ltd

(Case C-257/04)

(2004/C 217/25)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Civil Division dated 15 June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 16 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Michael Jason Clarke and Frank Staddon Ltd, and J.C. Caulfield, C.F. Caulfield, K.V. Barnes and Marshalls Clay Products Ltd, on the following questions:

| 1) | Does a contractually binding arrangement between an employer and a worker, which provides that a specific part of the wages paid to the worker represents that worker's ‘holiday pay’/ (an arrangement known as rolled up holiday pay), involve a violation of the worker's right to be paid for his annual leave under Article 7 of the Working Time Directive 93/104/EC (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Does a contractually binding arrangement between an employer and a worker, which provides that a specific part of the wages paid to the worker represents that worker's ‘holiday pay’/ (an arrangement known as rolled up holiday pay), involve a violation of the worker's right to be paid for his annual leave under Article 7 of the Working Time Directive 93/104/EC (1)?

1

| 2) | Would the answer to question 1 be different if the worker was paid the same before and after the binding arrangement in question coming into force so that the effect of the arrangement was not to provide for additional pay, but, rather, to attribute part of the wages payable to the worker to holiday pay? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Would the answer to question 1 be different if the worker was paid the same before and after the binding arrangement in question coming into force so that the effect of the arrangement was not to provide for additional pay, but, rather, to attribute part of the wages payable to the worker to holiday pay?

| 3) | If the answer to question 1 is yes, is it a violation of the right to paid annual leave under Article 7 for credit to be given for that payment so as to set this off against the entitlement afforded under the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

3)

If the answer to question 1 is yes, is it a violation of the right to paid annual leave under Article 7 for credit to be given for that payment so as to set this off against the entitlement afforded under the Directive?

| 4) | In order to comply with the obligation under Article 7 of Directive 93/104/EC to ensure that a worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks, is it necessary for the payment to be made to the worker in the pay period in which he takes his annual leave, or is it sufficient to comply with Article 7 that the payment is made throughout the year in instalments? |
| --- | --- |

4)

In order to comply with the obligation under Article 7 of Directive 93/104/EC to ensure that a worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks, is it necessary for the payment to be made to the worker in the pay period in which he takes his annual leave, or is it sufficient to comply with Article 7 that the payment is made throughout the year in instalments?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time. OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18-24

1

---