Case C‑214/16

Conley King

v

The Sash Window Workshop Ltd and Richard Dollar

(Request for a preliminary ruling
from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Article 7 — Allowance in lieu of annual leave paid on termination of the employment relationship — National legislation requiring a worker to take his annual leave without the remuneration in respect of that leave being established)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 29 November 2017

1.        Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Right to paid annual leave — Purpose — National legislation that requires a worker to take such leave before knowing if he is entitled to be paid in respect of it — Not permissible

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7)

2.        Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Right to paid annual leave — National legislation that prevents a worker from carrying over and, where appropriate, accumulating, until termination of his employment relationship, paid annual leave rights not exercised in respect of several consecutive reference periods because his employer refused to remunerate that leave — Not permissible

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7)

1.      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, and the right to an effective remedy set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted, in the case of a dispute between a worker and his employer as to whether the worker is entitled to paid annual leave under the first of those articles, as precluding the worker having to take his leave first before establishing whether he has the right to be paid in respect of that leave.

The very purpose of the right to paid annual leave is to enable the worker to rest and to enjoy a period of relaxation and leisure (see, inter alia, judgments of 20 January 2009, Schultz-Hoff and Others, C‑350/06 and C‑520/06, EU:C:2009:18, paragraph 25, and of 30 June 2016, Sobczyszyn, C‑178/15, EU:C:2016:502, paragraph 25).

It is true that Directive 2003/88 contains no provisions on judicial remedies available to the worker, in the case of a dispute with his employer, to enforce his right to paid annual leave under that directive. However, it is not disputed that the Member States must, in such a context, ensure compliance with the right to an effective remedy, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter (see, by analogy, judgment of 15 September 2016, Star Storage and Others, C‑439/14 and C‑488/14, EU:C:2016:688, paragraph 46).

(see paras 37, 41, 47, operative part 1)

2.      Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices that prevent a worker from carrying over and, where appropriate, accumulating, until termination of his employment relationship, paid annual leave rights not exercised in respect of several consecutive reference periods because his employer refused to remunerate that leave.

Indeed, if it were to be accepted, in that context, that the worker’s acquired entitlement to paid annual leave could be extinguished, that would amount to validating conduct by which an employer was unjustly enriched to the detriment of the very purpose of that directive, which is that there should be due regard for workers’ health.

(see paras 64, 65, operative part 2)