CELEX: 62016CN0684
Language: en
Date: 2016-12-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-684/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV v Tetsuji Shimizu

3.4.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 104/32
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV v Tetsuji Shimizu
   (Case C-684/16)
   (2017/C 104/46)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Bundesarbeitsgericht
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV
   
      Defendant: Tetsuji Shimizu
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Does 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 (Directive 2003/88/EC) (1) or Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) preclude national legislation, such as Paragraph 7 of the Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal law on leave, ‘the BUrlG’), under which, as one of the methods of exercising the right to annual leave, an employee must apply for such leave with an indication of his preferred dates so that the leave entitlement does not lapse at the end of the relevant period without compensation and under which an employer is not required, unilaterally and with binding effect for the employee, to specify when that leave be taken by the employee within the relevant period?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
               Does this apply even where the employment relationship is between two private persons?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.