Article 31 - Fair and just working conditions
Key facts of the case:
Employees on sick leave complained that they were not entitled to their paid leave. French legislation stipulates that "employees are entitled to two and a half working days' leave for each month of actual work with the same employer". However, non-occupational illness is not considered as time actually worked for the purposes of acquiring paid leave under the French Labour Code. This is why employees who have been off work due to a non-occupational illness are not entitled to paid leave for this period. The Court of Cassation had already ruled that Directive 2003/88/EC, which had not been transposed into French law, could not be used, in a dispute between private individuals, to set aside the effects of a contrary provision of national law. The employees took their case to the industrial tribunal with jurisdiction in labour law matters ("conseil des prud’hommes"), invoking not only Directive 2003/88 but also Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The ruling, upheld on appeal, was in their favour. The employer appealed to the French Supreme Court ("Cour de cassation").
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The employer put forward two arguments to contest the Court of Appeal's decision: 1) Lack of direct effect of the Charter: Article 31(2) of the Charter does not allow the effects of a contrary provision of national law to be set aside in a dispute between private individuals; 2) A misinterpretation of the Charter: It is incorrect to deduce that employees are entitled to guaranteed annual leave of at least four weeks, when Article 31(2) does not lay down a minimum period of time for the annual paid leave period.
Outcome of the case:
The French Supreme Court ("Cour de cassation") rejected the employer's appeal and upheld the analysis of the Court of Appeal ("Cour d’appel"): in order to ensure the direct effect of Article 31(2) of the Charter, the application of a national legal provision that is contrary to it must be set aside. Employers' organisations, in particular the Confederation of small and medium-sized enterprises ("Confédération des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises - CPME"), voiced their dissatisfaction with this ruling. The question now is whether the legislator will take account of this ruling and amend the disputed provision to bring it into line with the decision of the Court of Cassation ("Cour de cassation").
“5. Under Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, every worker has the right to a limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave.
(…)
11. In its ruling of 6 November 2018 (CJEU, ruling of 6 November 2018, Bauer and Willmeroth, C-569/16 and C- 570/16), the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that where it is impossible to interpret national legislation in such a way as to ensure compliance with Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the national court has a duty to disapply the national legislation in question. The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that this obligation is incumbent on the national court by virtue of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights when the dispute is between a beneficiary of the right to leave and an employer that is a public authority, and by virtue of the second of these provisions when the dispute is between the beneficiary and an employer who is a private individual.
14. As a consequence, since the dispute is between a person entitled to leave and an employer who is a private individual, it is incumbent on the national court to ensure, within the scope of its powers, the legal protection deriving from Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to ensure the full effect of that provision, if necessary disapplying the national legislation in question.
15. The provisions of Article L. 3141-3 of the French Labour Code should consequently be partially set aside insofar as they make the acquisition of paid leave entitlements by an employee whose employment contract is suspended as a result of sick leave due to a non-occupational illness, subject to the performance of actual work, and the employee should be entitled to their paid leave entitlements for this period in accordance with the provisions of Articles L. 3141-3 and L. 3141-9 of the French Labour Code.
16. The Court of Appeal, having rightly set aside in part the provisions of domestic law contrary to Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, correctly ruled that the employees had acquired rights to paid leave during the suspension of their employment contract due to a non-occupational illness".
“5. Aux termes de l'article 31, § 2, de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne, tout travailleur a droit à une limitation de la durée maximale du travail et à des périodes de repos journalier et hebdomadaire, ainsi qu'à une période annuelle de congés payés.
11. Par arrêt du 6 novembre 2018 (CJUE, arrêt du 6 novembre 2018, Bauer et Willmeroth, C-569/16 et C- 570/16), la Cour de Justice de l'Union européenne a jugé qu'en cas d'impossibilité d'interpréter une réglementation nationale de manière à en assurer la conformité avec l'article 7 de la directive 2003/88/CE et l'article 31, § 2, de la Charte des droits fondamentaux, la juridiction nationale doit laisser ladite réglementation nationale inappliquée. La Cour de justice de l'Union européenne précise que cette obligation s'impose à la juridiction nationale en vertu de l'article 7 de la directive 2003/88/CE et de l'article 31, § 2, de la Charte des droits fondamentaux lorsque le litige oppose un bénéficiaire du droit à congé à un employeur ayant la qualité d'autorité publique et en vertu de la seconde de ces dispositions lorsque le litige oppose le bénéficiaire à un employeur ayant la qualité de particulier.
14. Dès lors, le litige opposant un bénéficiaire du droit à congé à un employeur ayant la qualité de particulier, il incombe au juge national d'assurer, dans le cadre de ses compétences, la protection juridique découlant de l'article 31, § 2, de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne et de garantir le plein effet de celui-ci en laissant au besoin inappliquée ladite réglementation nationale.
15. Il convient en conséquence d'écarter partiellement l'application des dispositions de l'article L. 3141-3 du code du travail en ce qu'elles subordonnent à l'exécution d'un travail effectif l'acquisition de droits à congé payé par un salarié dont le contrat de travail est suspendu par l'effet d'un arrêt de travail pour cause de maladie non professionnelle et de juger que le salarié peut prétendre à ses droits à congés payés au titre de cette période en application des dispositions des articles L. 3141-3 et L. 3141-9 du code du travail.
16. La cour d'appel, après avoir, à bon droit, écarté partiellement les dispositions de droit interne contraires à l'article 31, § 2, de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne, a exactement décidé que les salariés avaient acquis des droits à congé payé pendant la suspension de leur contrat de travail pour cause de maladie non professionnelle ».
