Order;Information — ECLI:EU:C:2025:586
Date: 2025-07-15
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Anonymised version 
Translation C-37/25 – 1 
Case C-37/25 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
22 January 2025 
Referring court: 
Conseil de Prud’hommes de Dole (France) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
3 December 2024 
Applicant: 
YH 
Defendant: 
S.E.L.A.S. GTC Dijon (Greffe du Tribunal de Commerce de Dijon) 
  
FRENCH REPUBLIC  
IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE 
JUDGMENT 
Hearing of: 3 December 2024 
YH 
[…] 
APPLICANT 
S.E.L.A.S. GTC DIJON (GREFFE DU TRIBUNAL DE COMMERCE DE 
DIJON), in the person of its legal representative 
[…] 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 12. 2024 – CASE C-37/25 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
DEFENDANT 
- […] [composition of the adjudicating panel of the Conseil de Prud’hommes 
(Labour Tribunal)] 
PROCEEDINGS: 
- […] 
By application initiating proceedings dated 9 May 2023, YH requested that 
S.E.L.A.S. GTC DIJON (the simplified professional partnership (société 
d’exercice libéral par actions simplifiée (SELAS)) administering the 
Commercial Court Registry (Greffe du Tribunal de Commerce (GTC)), 
Dijon) be summoned to appear before the Conseil de Prud’hommes de Dijon, 
section Activités diverses (Dijon Labour Tribunal, Other Activities Section) to 
answer the following claims […] [corresponding essentially to the applicant’s 
pleas and claims set out below]. 
- […] 
The Dijon Labour Tribunal declined jurisdiction in a judgment dated 7 December 
2023 on the basis of Article 47 of the Code de procédure civile (French Code of 
Civil Procedure), and referred the case to this labour tribunal on 15 January 2024. 
[…] [procedural details] 
*** 
* 
FACTS 
YH was recruited by the Dijon Commercial Court Registry (GTC) on 18 January 
1983. 
The Dijon GTC was run by AB for 40 years […]. 
On 30 June 2020, during the Covid-19 period, AB retired and sold 20% of his 
partnership shares to CD, who became a minority shareholder, with AB still being 
80% majority shareholder. 
On 25 January 2021, GTC Dijon requested that YH attend an employee interview. 
From 9 to 18 February 2022, YH was placed on sick leave, before returning to 
work on 23 February 2022. 
On 28 February 2022, YH was again placed on sick leave. 
GTC DIJON 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
Whilst still on sick leave, YH asked the labour tribunal to terminate her 
employment contract, on the basis of fault on the part of GTC Dijon. 
PLEAS AND CLAIMS OF THE APPLICANT 
Since CD acquired shares in GTC Dijon, working conditions have deteriorated. 
CD harassed YH at work and constantly denigrated the employees of GTC Dijon. 
It was for that reason that YH was placed on sick leave and applied to the Caisse 
Primaire d’Assurance Maladie (the local sickness insurance fund; CPAM) for 
recognition of an occupational illness. 
A criminal investigation is in progress into a complaint lodged by YH’s colleague, 
EF, for psychological harassment[,] against CD. 
YH is still on sick leave with anxiety and depression due to the psychological 
harassment she has been suffering at the hands of CD. 
[…] 
In her most recent forms of order sought, to which reference should be made for a 
description of the facts and pleas, YH asks the labour tribunal to: 
In limine litis: 
Dismiss GTC DIJON’s application for a stay of proceedings, 
[…] 
Substance: 
Principally: 
Rule that YH is a victim of psychological harassment, 
Consequently: 
Order that YH’s employment contract has been terminated by the court, on the 
basis of exclusive fault by GTC Dijon, 
Declare and rule that the termination produces the effects of an invalid dismissal, 
Order GTC Dijon to pay the following sums to YH: 
- EUR 38 796.96 (net) as compensation for dismissal […], 
- EUR 9 229.23 (gross) as compensation in lieu of notice, in addition to the 
sum of EUR 922.92 (gross) as paid leave and related sums, 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 12. 2024 – CASE C-37/25 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
- EUR 61 528.20 (net) as damages for invalid dismissal, 
In the alternative: 
Order that YH’s employment contract has been terminated by the court, on the 
basis of exclusive fault by GTC Dijon, 
Declare and rule that the termination produces the effects of a dismissal without 
genuine and serious grounds, 
Order GTC Dijon to pay the following sums to YH: 
- EUR 38 796.96 (net) as compensation for dismissal […], 
- EUR 9 229.23 (gross) as compensation in lieu of notice, in addition to the 
sum of EUR 922.92 (gross) as paid leave and related sums, 
- EUR 61 528.20 (net) as damages for dismissal without genuine and serious 
grounds, 
In any case: 
Order GTC Dijon to pay YH the sum of EUR 12 305.64 (net) for breach of its 
obligation to ensure safety, 
Order GTC Dijon to pay YH the sum of EUR 7 629.50 in respect of paid leave 
accrued during her period of sick leave, 
[…] 
[…] [claims concerning matters not relevant to the reference for a preliminary 
ruling] 
PLEAS AND CLAIMS OF THE DEFENDANT 
On 30 June 2020, during the Covid-19 period, CD took up her duties as Clerk of 
the Court, in addition to day-to-day business management decisions. 
So it was during that difficult period, affected by Covid-19, that CD was required 
to integrate into and learn about the operational environment of the registry, which 
had been run by AB for decades. 
In addition, due to a number of factors beyond her control […], CD took certain 
emergency decisions to stabilise the company and carry out initial professional 
assessments. 
In January 2021, YH, who had been with the company for 38 years, indicated at 
her employee interview that she had no career plans. YH does not wish to change 
her position. 
GTC DIJON 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
So it was in a routine climate that CD wished to move the company forward with 
a new structure, which was repeatedly disapproved of by YH. 
The GTC Dijon is therefore contesting any psychological harassment of YH, who 
could not cope with the changes made by CD. 
CD’s management authority has never been acted upon and has always been 
contested by those employees with seniority. As a result, YH subsequently 
committed a number of professional breaches, which were raised by CD as 
employer. 
As soon as YH notified the inspection du travail (Labour Inspectorate) of her 
dissatisfaction, and CD was informed of this, CD suggested that YH attend an 
employee interview to review her job description. 
In addition, following the investigation carried out by the Labour Inspectorate and 
CPAM, CD contacted the Agence Nationale pour l’Amélioration des Conditions 
de Travail (National Agency for the Improvement of Working Conditions; 
ANACT) to organise an audit of psycho-social risks within the company, and 
asked for mediation with YH, which the latter refused. 
All of this was done within the framework of the employer’s obligation to ensure 
safety. 
In its most recent forms of order sought, to which reference should be made for a 
description of the facts and pleas, GTC Dijon asks the labour tribunal to: 
In limine litis: 
Stay these proceedings until at least the preliminary investigation has been 
completed, 
Refer the question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary 
ruling and consequently stay these proceedings, 
[…], 
[…] [other claims unrelated to the subject matter of the reference for a preliminary 
ruling], 
Substance: 
Principally: 
Dismiss all of YH’s claims, 
[…], 
[…], 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 12. 2024 – CASE C-37/25 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
In the alternative: 
Order SELAS GTC DIJON to pay YH the sum of EUR 5 759.00 as an allowance 
for paid leave, 
Dismiss all of YH’s further claims, 
[…], 
In the further alternative: 
Order that YH’s employment contract be terminated and classify this as a 
dismissal without genuine and serious grounds, 
Order SELAS GTC DIJON to pay YH the subsequent compensation amounts, 
namely the sum of EUR 9 229.23 in damages, EUR 38 796.95 as compensation 
for dismissal, EUR 9 229.23 as compensation in lieu of notice and EUR 922.92 as 
paid leave. 
*** 
* 
LAW 
The application for a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the current 
criminal proceedings 
[…] 
[review of the legislation applicable to that request] 
It is settled case-law that the court may stay the proceedings in the interests of the 
proper administration of justice […] [.] 
In the case at hand: 
YH informed the Labour Inspectorate that she had been subjected to 
psychological harassment. This was followed by a large number of exchanges 
with the Labour Inspectorate and the CPAM. 
It was against that background that her colleague, EF, lodged a complaint against 
CD for psychological harassment. 
[…] 
The Dole Labour Tribunal therefore deemed it necessary to have information 
about the outcome of EF’s complaint against CD in order to determine whether 
GTC DIJON 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
CD had allegedly harassed EF and whether YH’s allegations had been confirmed 
by the Public Prosecutor. 
Consequently: 
In the interests of the proper administration of justice, this labour tribunal will stay 
its decision pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. 
The question referred for a preliminary ruling concerning entitlement to paid 
leave 
Legal basis: 
The second paragraph of Article 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure 
‘Where the resolution of a dispute depends on an issue giving rise to serious 
difficulty and falling within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts, the 
judicial court before which the matter has initially been brought shall refer that 
issue to the competent administrative court, pursuant to Title 1 of Book III of the 
code de justice administrative (Administrative Justice Code). It shall stay the 
proceedings pending a decision on the question referred.’ 
Article R. 1451-2 of the Code du travail (Labour Code): 
‘In order to be admissible, procedural objections must be raised before any 
defence on the merits or plea of inadmissibility. Subject to this proviso, they may 
be raised before the adjudicating panel.’ 
Article 267 the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 
‘The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give 
preliminary rulings concerning: 
(a) the interpretation of the Treaties; 
(b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or 
agencies of the Union; 
Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, 
that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is 
necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling 
thereon …’ 
In the present case 
In July 2024, the GTC Dijon had […] [a court enforcement officer] draft a report 
on YH’s leisure activities based on the freely accessible posts on her Facebook 
account, while she has been on sick leave since February 2022 for anxiety and 
depression. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 12. 2024 – CASE C-37/25 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
YH’s posts bear witness to a busy life outside her work. 
YH’s sick leave from 28 February 2022 has no restrictions in terms of timetable, 
with outings authorised, which gives YH complete freedom of movement. 
The Dole Labour Tribunal notes that YH regularly takes holidays […], and 
regularly eats out at restaurants. She therefore has access to rest, relaxation and 
leisure time. 
YH has also refused – in all cases – the mediation offered regarding her return to 
work, and the interviews with her employer, CD. 
In January 2023, CPAM refused to recognise that YH’s illness was of 
occupational origin. YH is still on sick leave, even though she seems to be living a 
perfectly normal life. 
YH is asking this tribunal to pay her compensation for paid leave accrued during 
her non-work-related sick leave. 
GTC Dijon states that the Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgments 
(Grand Chamber) of 20 January 2009, Gerhard Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche 
Rentenversicherung Bund (C-350/06) and Stringer and Others v Her Majesty’s 
Revenue and Customs (C-520/06) had already noted the dual purpose of the 
entitlement to paid annual leave, namely: ‘to enable the worker to rest’ and to 
‘enjoy a period of relaxation and leisure’. The judgment of the Court of Justice of 
the European Union of 9 November 2023, Keolis Agen SARL v SNTU-CFDT 
[(C-271/22 to C-275/22] once again clarified that dual purpose. 
It is clear from the court enforcement officer’s report on the public Facebook 
postings that YH, during her absence from work due to non-work-related illness, 
enjoys a great deal of rest, holidays, relaxation and leisure (sports). 
YH, who has had no contact with her employer since February 2022, is also 
enjoying a period of rest. 
In that situation, the dual purpose of rest and leisure is, therefore, satisfied. 
National law – through loi No 2024-364 du 22 avril 2024 (Law No 2024-364 of 
22 April 2024), in its article L. 3141-19-3 of the Labour Code – does not cover 
this situation, namely where an employee is not suffering from an illness that 
would immobilise him or her through heavy treatment and obviously require time 
off to rest and enjoy leisure activities, and therefore runs counter to the dual 
purpose provided for under European law. 
As the aforementioned dual purpose is fully satisfied in YH’s case and evidence to 
the contrary has not been adduced, the question referred for a preliminary ruling 
raises a serious difficulty as to that dual purpose and the fact that French law does 
not consider that situation. 
GTC DIJON 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
Consequently: 
The Dole Labour Tribunal has granted the request for a preliminary ruling and 
will refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the 
interpretation of Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union and Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament, and on the 
interpretation given by the Court of Justice concerning the dual purpose enshrined 
in the aforementioned annual entitlement to paid leave. 
[…] 
[response from the referring court concerning claims unrelated to the subject 
matter of the reference for a preliminary ruling] 
*** 
* 
ON THOSE GROUNDS 
The Dole Labour Tribunal, Other Activities Section, 
[…] 
STAYS proceedings pending the outcome of the current criminal proceedings; 
Having regard to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union; 
REFERS the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling: 
1/ Must Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
4 November 2023 and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights be 
interpreted as meaning that the conditions for entitlement to, and granting of, [paid 
leave] laid down by French legislation must take account of the dual purpose 
specified by the Court of Justice, namely to enable workers to rest in relation to 
the performance of their duties under their contracts of employment, on the one 
hand, and to enjoy a period of relaxation and leisure, on the other? 
2/ If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, do the judgments 
delivered by the Court of Justice in relation to that dual purpose mean that States, 
including France, must provide for a distinction in the entitlement to, and granting 
of, paid leave in order to preserve the positive effect of annual leave? 
3/ In any event, does the imprecise wording of the French legislation not distort 
the dual purpose of the entitlement to paid annual leave by making no distinction 
as to the conditions for entitlement to, and granting of, paid leave? 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3. 12. 2024 – CASE C-37/25 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
STAYS the proceedings pending the decision of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union; 
[…] 
DECLARES that an execution copy of the present judgment, with the case file, 
shall be sent by the Registry of the Dole Labour Tribunal to the Registry of the 
Court of Justice of the European Union; 
So judged, ruled and ordered […] on 3 December 2024. 
The Registrar,      The President, 
[signatures and stamps]