# C_2012073EN.01000202.xml

| 10.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Maribel Dominguez v Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, Préfet de la région Centre,

(Case C-282/10) (1)

1

(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)

2012/C 73/03

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Maribel Dominguez

Appellant:

Respondents: Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique, Préfet de la région Centre,

Respondents:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Paid annual leave for workers — Entitlement to leave irrespective of the nature of the worker’s absence and its duration — National rules making the granting of such leave conditional on a minimum of ten days’ actual work during the reference year — Obligation on the national court to refrain from applying national provisions that conflict with European Union law

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 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. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 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.

| 2. | It is for the national court to determine, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration, in particular Article L. 223-4 of the Code du travail, and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, with a view to ensuring that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 is fully effective and achieving an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it, whether it can find an interpretation of that law that allows the absence of the worker due to an accident on the journey to or from work to be treated as being equivalent to one of the situations covered by that article of the Code du travail.
  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 achieve the objective laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, the party injured as a result of domestic law not being in conformity with European Union law can 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 loss sustained. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is for the national court to determine, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration, in particular Article L. 223-4 of the Code du travail, and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, with a view to ensuring that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 is fully effective and achieving an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it, whether it can find an interpretation of that law that allows the absence of the worker due to an accident on the journey to or from work to be treated as being equivalent to one of the situations covered by that article of the Code du travail.

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 achieve the objective laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, the party injured as a result of domestic law not being in conformity with European Union law can 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 loss sustained.

| 3. | Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 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. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 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.

---

(1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.

1

---