Case C-350/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 21 August 2006 — Gerhard Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: illness, indemnification, interpretation of the law, labour law, paid leave

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/21

In the event that the answer to Question 7 is negative:

8. May a Turkish national, whose legal status derives from the
second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision
No 1/80, rely on the special protection against expulsion
under Article 28(1) of Directive 2004/38?

In the event that the continuance of a legal status under the
second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No
1/80 is to be assumed (if the answer to Question 1 is affirma-
tive or the answer to Question 2 is affirmative and the answers
to Questions 3 and 4 are negative), a further question requires
an answer:

9. Can a number of minor offences (essentially offences against
property), which, taken individually, are not sufficient to
form the basis of an actual and sufficiently serious danger to
a fundamental interest of society, justify expulsion because
of their great number, if further offences are likely and no
measures are taken against German nationals in the same
circumstances?

(1) OJ 1977 L 361, p. 60.

authorised at a later date, or can national legal provisions
and/or national practice stipulate that an entitlement
to
annual paid leave is extinguished if workers become incapa-
citated for work during the leave year before leave is
authorised and do not recover their capacity for work
before the end of the leave year or the carry-over period
laid down by statute, collective agreement or individual
agreement?

2. Is Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC to be understood as
meaning that at the end of the employment relationship
workers have, in any event, a claim to financial compensa-
tion in respect of leave accrued but not taken (an allowance
in lieu of leave), or can national legislation and/or national
practice stipulate that workers will not receive an allowance
in lieu of leave if, up to the end of the leave year or the rele-
vant carry-over period, they are incapacitated for work and/
or if after the ending of the employment relationship they
draw a disability or invalidity pension?

3. In the event that the Court of Justice answers Questions 1

and 2 in the affirmative:

Is Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC to be understood as
meaning that the entitlement to annual leave or an allow-
ance in lieu requires the worker actually to have worked
during the leave year, or does the entitlement arise also in
the case of excusable absence (by reason of illness) or inex-
cusable absence in the same leave year?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeits-
gericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 21 August 2006
— Gerhard Schultz-Hoff v Deutsche Rentenversicherung
Bund

(1) OJ L 299, p. 9.

(Case C-350/06)

(2006/C 281/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Gerhard Schultz-Hoff

Respondent: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

Questions referred

1. Is Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) (= Article 7 of
Directive 93/104/EC) to be understood as meaning that
workers must in any event receive minimum annual paid
leave of four weeks [and that] in particular leave not taken
by a worker because of illness during the leave year must be

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Köln lodged on 25 August 2006 — Brigitte Bosmann v
Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Familienkasse Aachen

(Case C-352/06)

(2006/C 281/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brigitte Bosmann

Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Familienkasse Aachen