Kathleen Greenfield v The Care Bureau Ltd.
Date: 2015-11-11
26.  In that regard, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law, the right of every worker to paid annual leave must be regarded as a particularly important principle of European Union social law from which there can be no derogations and whose implementation by the competent national authorities must be confined within the limits expressly laid down (see, inter alia, judgments in BECTU , C‑173/99, EU:C:2001:356, paragraph 43, and Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols , C‑486/08, EU:C:2010:215, paragraph 28).
27. In addition, the Court has repeatedly emphasised that the entitlement of every worker to paid annual leave is, as a principle of European Union social law, expressly laid down in Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which Article 6(1) TEU recognises as having the same legal value as the Treaties (see, inter alia, judgment in Heimann and Toltschin , C‑229/11 and C‑230/11, EU:C:2012:693, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).
28. It is apparent, moreover, from that case-law that the right to paid annual leave may not be interpreted restrictively (see, inter alia, judgments in Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols , C‑486/08, EU:C:2010:215, paragraph 29, and Heimann and Toltschin , C‑229/11 and C‑230/11, EU:C:2012:693, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).
29. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the purpose of the entitlement to paid annual leave is to enable the worker to rest from carrying out the work he is required to do under his contract of employment (judgment in KHS , C‑214/10, EU:C:2011:761, paragraph 31). Consequently, the entitlement to paid annual leave accrues and must be calculated with regard to the work pattern specified in the contract.
33. In the second place, concerning the period of work to which the right to paid annual leave relates, and the possible consequences that an alteration in the work pattern, in relation to the number of hours worked, can or must have on the total leave rights already accumulated and on the exercise of those rights over time, it should be noted that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, the taking of annual leave in a period after the period during which the entitlement to leave has been accumulated has no connection to the time worked by the worker during that later period (judgment in Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols , C‑486/08, EU:C:2010:215, paragraph 32).
34. The Court has also previously held that a change and, in particular, a reduction in working hours when moving from full-time to part-time employment cannot reduce the right to annual leave that the worker has accumulated during the period of full-time employment (judgment in Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols, C‑486/08, EU:C:2010:215, paragraph 32, and order in Brandes , C‑415/12, EU:C:2013:398, paragraph 30).
40. It should be added that the distinction that should be made between different work patterns in relation to the accumulation of the entitlement to paid annual leave has, however, no effect on the exercise of accrued rights. As is apparent from the case-law, annual leave acquired during a reference period can be taken during a subsequent period, and the significance of the rest period acquired remains with regard to the positive effect of paid annual leave on the safety and health of the worker if it is taken not during the period in which it accrued, in which the worker worked full-time, but during a later period in which he works part-time (see, inter alia, judgments in Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging , C‑124/05, EU:C:2006:244, paragraph 30, and KHS , C‑214/10, EU:C:2011:761, point 32).
48. Lastly, it should be recalled that no provision of Directive 2003/88 expressly lays down the way in which the allowance in lieu of the minimum period or periods of paid annual leave must be calculated where the employment relationship is terminated (judgment in Schultz-Hoff and Others , C‑350/06 and C‑520/06, EU:C:2009:18, paragraph 57).
50. However, according to the case-law of the Court, the expression ‘paid annual leave’ in Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 means that, for the duration of annual leave within the meaning of that directive, remuneration must be maintained and that, in other words, workers must receive their normal remuneration for that period of rest (judgment in Schultz-Hoff and Others , C‑350/06 and C‑520/06, EU:C:2009:18, paragraph 58).
51. Moreover, the Court has held that, with regard to a worker who has not been able, for reasons beyond his control, to exercise his right to paid annual leave before termination of the employment relationship, the allowance in lieu to which he is entitled must be calculated so that the worker is put in a position comparable to that he would have been in had he exercised that right during his employment relationship. It follows that the worker’s normal remuneration, which is that which must be maintained during the rest period corresponding to the paid annual leave, is also decisive as regards the calculation of the allowance in lieu of annual leave not taken by the end of the employment relationship (judgment in Schultz-Hoff and Others , C‑350/06 and C‑520/06, EU:C:2009:18, paragraph 61).
54. It is apparent from the Court’s case-law that, where remuneration is made up of several elements, the determination of normal remuneration requires a specific analysis. In such a situation it is for the national court or tribunal to assess, in the light of the principles identified in the case-law, whether, on the basis of an average over a reference period which is considered to be representative, the methods of calculating normal remuneration and the allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken achieve the objective pursued by Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 (see, to that effect, judgment in Lock , C‑539/12, EU:C:2014:351, paragraph 34).