Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2023:243
Date: 2023-03-23
Language of the case: French
Subject matter: Approximation of laws;Social Policy;Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Anonymised version 
Translation C-271/22 – 1 
Case C-271/22 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged:  
21 April 2022 
Referring court:  
Conseil de prud’hommes d’Agen (France) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
14 February 2022 
Applicant:  
XT 
Defendant:  
Keolis Agen SARL 
  
CONSEIL DE PRUD’HOMMES 
D’AGEN 
[OMISSIS] 
[OMISSIS]   JUDGMENT OF 14 FEBRUARY 2022 
SECTION: Trade 
[OMISSIS] XT 
[OMISSIS] 
[OMISSIS] [OMISSIS] 
[OMISSIS]  
[OMISSIS] [OMISSIS] 
[OMISSIS] APPLICANT 
 S.A.R.L. KEOLIS AGEN 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2022 – CASE C-271/22 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
[OMISSIS] 
 [OMISSIS] 
 DEFENDANT 
[OMISSIS] SYNDICAT NATIONAL DES TRANSPORTS 
URBAINS SNTU-CFDT 
[OMISSIS] 
 [OMISSIS] 
 VOLUNTARY INTERVENER 
 COMPOSITION OF THE TRIBUNAL 
[OMISSIS] 
 [OMISSIS] 
 [OMISSIS] 
 
PROCEEDINGS  
The action was brought before the conseil de prud’hommes d’Agen [Labour 
Tribunal, Agen] [OMISSIS] [OMISSIS] on 26 December 2019. 
[OMISSIS] the heads of claim [are] as follows: 
[OMISSIS] 
Declare that the company KEOLIS AGEN, acting as delegate for the operation of 
an internal public transport network, provides a public service the extent, terms 
and conditions and tariffs of which are laid down by the organising public 
authority, and whose agents are authorised by law and regulation to establish 
relevant infringements, 
Declare that 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 may therefore be directly relied on against KEOLIS AGEN. 
In the alternative, 
Declare that Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union may be relied on against KEOLIS AGEN. 
[OMISSIS] [request that the defendant be ordered to pay allowances in lieu of 
paid annual leave and damages]. 
[OMISSIS] 
[OMISSIS] FACTS: 
XT was employed by KEOLIS AGEN on 21 April 2006 under a permanent 
contract to provide vehicle maintenance. 
KEOLIS AGEN 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
By a contract addendum of 28 February 2012, his position changed to that of 
driver-conductor. 
His employment contract was terminated by letter of 3 December 2018 after being 
judged unfit to work by the occupational doctor, without it being possible to 
reassign him to a different position. 
Prior to his dismissal, XT had numerous leaves of absence from work due to a 
long-term non-occupational illness and, in particular, for a continuous period from 
9 January 2017 to 31 October 2018 – the date on which he was declared unfit for 
work – that is to say 357 days in 2017 and 304 days in 2018. 
On 3 January 2019, XT wrote to KEOLIS AGEN to claim allowances in lieu of 
paid annual leave in respect of the periods of illness. 
By letter of 24 January 2019, KEOLIS AGEN refused that request on the basis of 
Article 3141-5 of the Labour Code and the National Collective Agreement of 
Urban Public Transport Passenger Networks. 
Considering KEOLIS AGEN’S decision refusing to grant that request to be 
contrary to EU law, XT brought proceedings before the conseil de prud’hommes, 
Agen, seeking a judgment ordering his employer to pay him allowances in lieu of 
paid annual leave as requested and damages resulting from the failure to do so. 
[OMISSIS] Before ruling, KEOLIS AGEN requested that three questions be 
referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. 
[OMISSIS] [decision to stay the proceedings and to submit a request for a 
preliminary ruling] 
Applicant 
To justify his claim, the applicant, relying on the respect of constitutional 
principles in the hierarchy of norms, requests that the conseil de prud’hommes 
applies Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union which, according to the applicant, 
take precedence over Article L 3141-5 of the Labour Code, and finds, 
accordingly, that he has been unjustly deprived of his entitlement to annual leave. 
The applicant requests that the conseil de prud’hommes dismisses the request for 
the three questions to be referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. 
He states that a reference for a preliminary ruling is mandatory only for courts in 
respect of whose decisions there is no judicial remedy and that the conseil de 
prud’hommes is not therefore required to refer the matter to the Court. 
He points out that it is not for the Court to settle the dispute and that it may rule 
only on the interpretation or validity of community law on the basis of the facts 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2022 – CASE C-271/22 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
set out by the national court and provide all the necessary information to enable 
the court to rule on the matter. 
Direct applicability of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC 
The applicant maintains that the Court has already ruled in that regard. 
He states that in several judgments of 6 November 2018 (Wuppertal; Max-Planck; 
Kreuziger) in which the Court refers to the application of Article 31(2) of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Court ruled that that 
article is directly applicable and authorises the national court to disregard national 
legislation on the basis of Article 31(2) of the Charter provided that that provision 
is sufficient in itself. [OMISSIS] [reference to national academic legal writing] 
As to whether Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC may be applied directly to 
KEOLIS AGEN, private-law operator and delegate of a public service with 
special ordinary law powers for that purpose, the applicant considers that it is for 
national law to define whether that company fulfils the requirements to be 
considered as such. 
The applicant observes that the Court and the Cour de Cassation (Court of 
Cassation, France) have already given a ruling in the judgments in Transdev 
(judgment of 22 June 2016, 15-20.111, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2016:SO01289) and 
RATP (judgment of 21 September 2017, 16-24.022, 
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2017:SO02067), and regrets that KEOLIS AGEN has not 
provided the public service delegation contract as requested.  
As for the liberalisation of the rail passenger transport sector (referred to in the 
first question), the applicant is surprised by that argument, he maintains that 
KEOLIS AGEN is the delegate of urban public transport services and not rail 
services and the company is not therefore affected by the liberalisation of the rail 
transport market.  
In any event, with regard to urban transport, he states that the law will therefore 
only be mandatory from 25 December 2023; at the end of the transitional period 
which began in December 2019. 
The question of liberalisation is therefore irrelevant. 
The applicant considers that KEOLIS AGEN raises a hypothetical issue which 
falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court. 
So far as concerns the reference made to the competitive market, the applicant is 
surprised by that argument, in so far as the defendant has been mindful not to 
produce the public service delegation contract and he observes that the issue has 
already been resolved by the judgment in RATP [OMISSIS] (of the Cour de 
Cassation of 21 September 2017, 16-24.022, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2017:SO02067] 
[OMISSIS]. 
KEOLIS AGEN 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
The applicant considers that for all the foregoing reasons, [OMISSIS] there is 
therefore no need to refer a question for a preliminary ruling in that regard and 
requests that the conseil de prud’hommes rejects that request. 
- The accrual of paid annual leave and the carry-over period in respect of 
acquired entitlements to paid annual leave within the meaning of Article 7(1) of 
Directive 2003/88/EC 
- The application of an unlimited carry-over period in the absence of a 
provision of national law, a regulation or convention governing that period, 
contrary to Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC  
With regard to the request made to the Court to set a reasonable carry-over period 
under French law, the applicant states that the issue is not new and that the Court, 
while it can examine a period fixed by a Member State, is not justified in 
determining the carry-over period even when there is no national standard. 
The applicant claims that such a request has already been considered in the 
judgment in RATP [OMISSIS] (of the Cour de Cassation of 21 September 2017, 
16-24.022, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2017:SO02067) which, on that occasion, adopted a 
different position from that taken by the Conseil d’État (Council of State, France) 
in its Opinion of 26 April 2017 [ECLI:FR:CECHR:2017:406009.20170426]. 
As for the failure to set a carry-over period in respect of acquired entitlements to 
paid annual leave in the absence of national legislation, the applicant states that 
such a period cannot be fixed by the courts; the Court has already addressed that 
issue. 
The applicant explains that it is for the legislature alone to comply with 
instructions issued both by the High Court and by the Court and to determine the 
conditions for carrying over paid annual leave and that where there is no 
legislation limiting the carry-over period, it is not for the court to establish such 
limits in the name of the separation of the powers. 
The applicant thus considers that the Court does not have jurisdiction on French 
territory to rule on this matter. 
Although the Court has had the opportunity to find that, in light of the purpose of 
the right to paid annual leave, a worker cannot have the right to accumulate, 
without any limit, acquired entitlements to paid annual leave, it is bound by the 
concept of reasonable period without specifically fixing that period [OMISSIS] 
(judgment of 22 November 2011, KHS, C-214/10, EU:C:2011:761). 
The applicant requests that the application to refer questions for a preliminary 
ruling to the Court is rejected. 
Defendant 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2022 – CASE C-271/22 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
KEOLIS AGEN states that it is a private-law company, subject to competition, 
required to ensure urban public transport passenger services. 
KEOLIS AGEN submits that French labour law and Article L 3141-5 [of the 
Labour Code] apply in the applicant’s situation and not Article 7 of Directive 
2003/88. 
The employer points out that that provision has not been transposed into French 
law and considers there to be a serious difficulty in interpreting the meaning and 
scope of Directive 2003/88 of 4 November 2003 and Article 7 thereof, in 
particular in respect of public service companies. 
The first question and the direct effect of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 
Applicability of a directive between individuals 
The employer argues, unlike the applicant, that it is common ground that a 
directive cannot, in a dispute between individuals, allow for the effects of a 
conflicting provision of national law to be set aside [OMISSIS] (Cour de 
cassation, judgments of 13 March 2013, [11-22.285] 
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2013:SO00466 and of 10 December 2014, [13-17.743] 
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2014:SO02315) and that although the Court has recognised that 
clear, precise and unconditional provisions of a directive have direct effect, either 
where the State has failed to implement the directive in domestic law by the end 
of the period prescribed, or where it has failed to implement the directive correctly 
[OMISSIS] (judgment of 24 January 2012, Dominguez, C-282/10, 
EU:C:2012:33), it is, however, settled case-law that the direct effect is vertical in 
nature and may not be invoked in a dispute between individuals [OMISSIS] 
(judgment of 26 March 2015, Fenoll, C-316/13, EU:C:2015:200, paragraph 48). 
Public service companies 
KEOLIS AGEN acknowledges, however, that, according to the Court’s case-law, 
where there is a clear, precise and unconditional provision, a directive may be 
relied upon by individuals against the State or a body, whatever its legal form, 
which has been made responsible, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for 
providing a public service under the control of the State and has for that purpose 
special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in 
relations between individuals. 
KEOLIS AGEN considers that it cannot be treated as a State body within the 
meaning of Article 288 [OMISSIS] [TFEU], a position which it believes has been 
strengthened by the opening up of the public transport sector to competition. 
KEOLIS AGEN notes that it is an urban public transport passenger service 
undertaking governed by private law with a public service mission, it cannot be 
considered as intervening under the supervision of the public authority under 
Community law, it states that it does not enjoy special ordinary law powers and 
KEOLIS AGEN 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 cannot therefore be applied directly, in so far 
as the three cumulative conditions have not been met. 
This is, moreover, the position adopted by the Cour de Cassation in the judgments 
in EDF of 4 May 2017 [16-10.040, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2017:SO00782] [OMISSIS] 
and KEOLIS of 14 December 2016 [14-26.227, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2016:SO02347] 
[OMISSIS]. 
KEOLIS AGEN disputes the applicant’s interpretation of the judgments [of the 
Cour de Cassation] in Transdev [of 22 June 2016, 15-20.111, 
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2016:SO01289] and RATP [of 21 September 2017, 16-24.022, 
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2017:SO02067] which, in order to establish the applicability of 
Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, relies in particular on the special powers 
granted to those companies in relation to the rules applicable between individuals 
and in particular notes that the transport agents of those companies are authorised 
by law and regulation to establish relevant infringements, which is not so in the 
present case for KEOLIS AGEN whose agents do not enjoy such powers. 
It considers that that case-law is now obsolete and contrary to Community law in 
the light of the opening up of the public transport sector to competition which has 
since taken place and that it is only for the Court to answer the question as to 
whether Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 is directly applicable in the context of 
the sectoral liberalisation of public transport. 
KEOLIS AGEN points out that the reference to the liberalisation of passenger rail 
services is based on the fact that the liberalisation of the transport sector, which 
took place in a number of stages, began with the rail sector and now affects all 
passenger transport sectors in respect of which the KEOLIS group is a key player 
concerned by various modes of passenger transport. 
With regard to Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
The employer points out that Article 31(2) o the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
establishes a general principle of the right to rest but does not fix a minimum 
period of paid annual leave like Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 and does not 
address the entitlement to carry over leave and the limits thereof and that that text 
has no weight outside the scope of EU law [OMISSIS] [judgment of 19 November 
2019, TSN and AKT, C-609/17 and C-610/17, EU:C:2019:981]. 
[OMISSIS] 
The second question of the accrual and carry-over period in respect of acquired 
entitlements to paid annual leave within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 
2003/88. 
Accrual of leave entitlement 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2022 – CASE C-271/22 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
KEOLIS AGEN notes, with a view to applying Article 7 of Directive 2033/88, for 
an individual who does not meet the conditions for obtaining paid annual leave 
based on work actually done as provided for in Article L 3141-3 of the Labour 
Code, that acquired entitlements to a minimum period of leave only cover a period 
of 4 weeks and not the 5 weeks provided for under national law. 
(judgment [of the Cour de cassation] Transdev [of 22 June 2016, 15-20.111, 
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2016:SO01289] [OMISSIS] Transdev and judgment of 
19 November 2019, [TSN and AKT, C-609/17 and C-610/17, EU:C:2019:981] 
[OMISSIS]). 
The determination of a reasonable carry-over period in respect of acquired 
entitlements to paid annual leave within the meaning of EU law. 
The employer indicates that the EU courts accept the possibility of limiting the 
carry-over period in the light of the actual purpose of the right to paid annual 
leave, in so far as the employee cannot have the right to accumulate, without any 
limit, entitlements to paid annual leave that are acquired during that period and 
‘the Court does not preclude national provisions or practices, which limit, by a 
carry-over period of 15 months on the expiry of which the right to paid annual 
leave lapses, [the accumulation of entitlement to such leave of a worker who is 
unfit for work for several consecutive reference periods]. A right to unlimited 
accumulation of entitlements to paid annual leave, acquired during a period of 
unfitness for work, would no longer reflect the actual purpose of the right to paid 
annual leave … enabling the worker both to rest from carrying out the work he is 
required to do under his contract of employment and to enjoy a period of 
relaxation and leisure., beyond such a limit annual leave ceases to have its 
positive effect for the worker as a rest period and is merely a period of relaxation 
and leisure … That carry-over period must also protect the employer from the risk 
that a worker will accumulate periods of absence of too great a length, and from 
the difficulties for the organisation of work which such periods might entail. 
[OMISSIS] [judgments of 22 November 2011, KHS, C-214/10, EU:C:2011:761, 
operative part and paragraphs 30, 31, 33 and 39; and of 3 May 2012, Neidel, 
C-337/10, EU:C:2012:263). 
However, the employer points out that in the judgment in RATP of 21 September 
2017, [16-24.022, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2017:SO02067], the Cour de Cassation held 
the statutory provisions of the RATP [Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens 
(Paris Transport Authority)] relating to the standardisation and carrying over of 
paid annual leave not taken by an individual due to illness to be contrary to 
[Directive 2003/88] on the ground that the carry-over period provided for by the 
statutory texts, fixed at one year, was insufficient in that it was equal to the 
reference period for the accrual of paid annual leave in France and contrary to the 
position adopted by the Court, whilst observing that the directive did not require 
Member States to provide for such a temporal limit. 
KEOLIS AGEN 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
The question arises as to the determination of a reasonable carry-over period in 
respect of up to four weeks’ paid leave, within the meaning of [Directive 
2003/88], since the position adopted by the Cour de Cassation accepts in that 
situation an unlimited carry-over period in respect of acquired entitlements to paid 
annual leave. 
It cannot reasonably be held that the absence of a provision of national law, a 
regulation or convention providing for a carry-over period in respect of annual 
leave is interpreted as justifying an unlimited carrying-over period in respect of 
acquired entitlements to paid annual leave.  
The employer considers that only the Court can answer that question and this 
gives rise to two questions to be submitted for a preliminary ruling. 
[OMISSIS] [wording of the second and third questions referred included in the 
operative part] 
The argument put forward by the other party seeking that the request to refer those 
two questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling be rejected 
So far as concerns the determination of a reasonable carry-over period, the 
employer states that whilst that period can be fixed by the legislature, it can also 
be established in accordance with the case-law, however since the Cour de 
Cassation and the Conseil d’État are not in agreement, it is for the Court to settle 
the matter and to interpret EU directives correctly.  
With regard to the fact that it is not possible for the Court to interpret the directive 
without undermining national sovereignty, KEOLIS AGEN notes that the right to 
carry over leave is based only on an interpretation of the directive, and not on 
French law, it is nonsense to assert that limiting the carry-over period in respect of 
annual leave in the light of the Court’s case-law would be inconsistent with 
French law. 
The fact that the resolution by the Court of the question referred for a preliminary 
ruling would have no bearing on the present dispute  
KEOLIS AGEN notes that the difference in position adopted by the French 
supreme courts requires, on the contrary, that the question is answered by the 
Court. 
REASONING: 
The [OMISSIS] [conseil de prud’hommes] [OMISSIS] [reminder of the 
proceedings] held as follows: 
The merits of the questions referred 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2022 – CASE C-271/22 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
Whereas XT requests the payment of allowances in lieu of paid annual leave in 
respect of the periods during which he was on long-term sick leave and not able to 
perform any actual work. 
Whereas the applicant relies, in that regard, on the provisions of Article 7 of 
Directive 2003/88/EC which states: 
‘1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that every worker 
is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks in accordance with the 
conditions for entitlement to, and granting of, such leave laid down by national 
legislation and/or practice. 
2 The minimum period of paid annual leave may not be replaced by an allowance 
in lieu, except where the employment relationship is terminated.’ 
[a]nd on Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union [which] states: 
Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours to daily and 
weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave. 
Whereas Article 267 [TFEU] states that the Court has jurisdiction to give 
preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, 
bodies, offices or agencies of the Union. 
Whereas the ordinary courts may decide at their own discretion to bring 
proceedings before the Court, subject to providing all the information to enable 
the court to decide on the matter. 
Consequently, the conseil de prud’hommes receives the application submitted by 
KEOLIS AGEN for examination. 
The first question on the direct application of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88  
Whereas the applicant invokes the direct application of Article 7(1) of Directive 
2003/88 instead of the provisions of Article L 3141-5 of the Labour Code and 
claims entitlement to paid annual leave acquired during the period during which 
performance of the contract of employment is suspended owing to non-
occupational illness pursuant to the principle of direct applicability of Article 7(1) 
of Directive 2003/88/EC, owing to the fact that KEOLIS AGEN is a company 
responsible, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing a public 
service under the control of the State and has for that purpose special powers 
beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between 
individuals, he relies on the case-law of the Court of Justice and that of the Cour 
de Cassation (judgment of 24 January 2012, Dominguez, C-282/10, EU:C:2012:33 
for the Court of Justice and judgments of 22 June 2016, Transdev, 15-20.111, 
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2016:SO01289 [OMISSIS] and of 21 September 2017, RATP, 
KEOLIS AGEN 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
16-24.022, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2017:SO02067 [OMISSIS] for the Cour de 
Cassation). 
Whereas KEOLIS AGEN disputes that interpretation and does not see itself in the 
courts’ definition of the liberalisation of the passenger transport sector and 
requests that the question concerning the application of Article 7(1) of Directive 
2003/88 be referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling. 
Whereas it is not normally possible to invoke the ‘direct effect’ of a directive in a 
dispute between individuals, but that the national court is still required to interpret 
national legislation, so far as possible, in accordance with the right to annual leave 
established by that directive. 
Whereas the conseil de prud’hommes states that there are indeed [on the one 
hand] ambiguities as to the direct applicability of Article 7(1) of Directive 
2003/88/EC vis-à-vis private-sector undertakings in their relations with their 
employees that the judgments (of the Court of Justice) of 6 November 2018 
(Wuppertal; Max-Planck; Kreuziger) invoked by the applicant do not dispel, 
relying mainly on the incomplete commentaries on those judgments, and [on the 
other] a second ambiguity between the position adopted by the Court with regard 
to private-law companies providing a public service that have, for that purpose, 
special ordinary law powers in respect of which Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 
applies directly, and the liberalisation of the passenger transport sector which 
places passengers, in the event that the previous case-law is confirmed, in a 
situation of competition benefitting the companies that remain subject to the 
provisions of Article L 3141-5 of the Labour Code, 
Consequently, the conseil de prud’hommes receives the question referred worded 
as follows 
[OMISSIS] [text of the first question referred set out in the operative part] 
The second and third questions 
[OMISSIS] [text of the second and third questions set out in the operative 
part][OMISSIS] 
Whereas the reasonable length of the carry-over period in respect of entitlements 
to paid annual leave acquired during a period of unfitness for work owing to 
illness is not precisely defined by law or case-law. 
Whereas the Court considers that a carry-over period of 15 months is reasonable; 
Whereas even if not affected by the position adopted by the Conseil d’État which 
advocates for a carry-over period of 15 months, the conseil de prud’hommes can 
only question the position taken by the Cour de Cassation which allows for the 
application of an unlimited carry-over period that no longer reflects the actual 
purpose of the right to paid annual leave, namely to enable the worker to rest from 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 14. 2. 2022 – CASE C-271/22 
 
12  
Anonymised version 
carrying out the work he is required to do under his contract of employment, on 
the one hand, and to enjoy a period of relaxation and leisure, on the other, in so far 
as such an unlimited or excessively long carry-over period ceases to have its 
positive effect for the worker as a rest period and is merely a period of relaxation 
and leisure … 
Whereas that position is the result of the Court’s case-law which, although it did 
not set a precise temporal limit, disputed the carry-over period which accords with 
practices and the French Labour Code thus rendering it ineffective for that 
purpose and allowing for endless possibilities for the carry-over period contrary to 
the actual purpose of the right to paid leave, the conseil de prud’hommes finds 
that it is fully entitled to be consulted in order to answer the two questions 
referred. 
Whereas the conseil de prud’hommes considers that those questions must be 
answered before it rules on the present dispute, and how best to answer those 
questions raises an important problem and it is therefore necessary to stay the 
proceedings in accordance with Article 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
ON THOSE GROUNDS: 
The conseil de prud’hommes, AGEN [OMISSIS] 
[OMISSIS] Refers the following questions to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
Question 1 
- Must 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 be interpreted as being directly applicable in relations between a 
private transport operator, with a single public service delegation, and its 
employees, in the light, in particular, of the liberalisation of the rail passenger 
transport sector? 
Question 2 
- What is a reasonable carry-over period in respect of the acquired entitlement 
to four weeks’ paid annual leave within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 
2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, 
in so far as the time during which annual leave may be accrued is one year? 
Question 3 
- Is the application of an unlimited carry-over period in the absence of a 
provision of national law, a regulation or convention governing that period 
contrary to Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 4 November 2003? 
KEOLIS AGEN 
 
13 
Anonymised version 
Stays the proceedings pending the decision of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union on those questions. 
[OMISSIS]