Article 31 - Fair and just working conditions
Key facts of the case:
A private party (hereinafter the complainant) challenged before the Court of Cassation the decision of the L’Aquila Court of Appeals to deny them the financial compensation for the days of paid leave and holidays (171 days) they had not enjoyed before the conclusion of their employment contract. This financial compensation had been denied both by the first-instance Ordinary Court and by the Court of Appeals. The complainant was a high-level manager of a local hospital service who stated during the judicial proceedings that they were unable to take paid annual leave due to understaffing of the service, and due to their managerial responsibilities. The national courts dismissed the compensation claim holding that the complainant had decided on their own motion not to enjoy the paid annual leave (as opposed to their employees) and this could not be attributed to the administration of the medical service.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The Court of Cassation had to assess, on the basis of the national legislation, EU law and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU, whether the worker (the complainant) had been put in a position to exercise their right to paid annual leave. This right includes: (a) the obligation to invite the employee, if necessary formally, to take their holiday, and inform them, accurately and in good time, that otherwise the holiday will get lost at the end of the employment contract; (b) the need to avoid a situation in which the burden of ensuring the actual exercise of the right to paid annual leave is placed entirely at the employee's expense; (c) providing that the burden of proof in this respect rests with the employer.
Outcome of the case:
The Court of Cassation acknowledged that the complainant had managerial responsibilities within the concerned medical service. It further highlighted that that the power to decide whether to take paid leave of the manager of a complex structure was not absolute and did not exempt the employer from the obligation of concretely ensuring that the employee is able to take their holiday. The loss of the entitlement to paid annual leave and the corresponding compensation upon termination of the employment contract can only occur if the employer offers proof that they have invited the employee to take leave - if necessary formally - and at the same time to have notified them, accurately and in sufficient time, that, if not taken, such leave would be lost at the end of the reference period of the contract. The challenged disposition of the L’Aquila Court of Appeals was therefore annulled as it had failed to assess these requirements. The case remitted to the L’Aquila Court of Appeals in a different composition of the Court.
3. ... European Union law has a decisive influence on the issue, in particular, according to the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the EU of 6 November 2018, 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 Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which must be interpreted as precluding national legislation ... under which, if a worker has not asked, before the date of termination of their employment relationship, to be able to exercise their right to paid annual leave, that worker loses, at the end of that period - automatically and without any prior check having been made as to whether they have actually been placed by their employer in particular with adequate information from the latter, in a position to exercise that right - the days of paid annual leave to which they were entitled under European Union law at the date of that termination and, consequently, their entitlement to an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken.
…
3. ... In this regard, the Constitutional Court, in its judgment of 6 May 2016, no. 95, held that the law (Art. 5 (8), Legislative Decree No. 95/2012, converted into Law No. 135/2012) was not unconstitutional, having to be interpreted as meaning that the loss of the right to monetisation cannot occur when the failure to take leave cannot be attributed to the employee, and further when the ‘organisational capacity of the employer’ is called into question, in the sense that the latter must be exercised in such a way as to ensure that leave is actually taken during the course of the employment relationship, as a right guaranteed by the Fundamental Charter (Art. 36(3)), international sources (International Labour Organisation Convention No. 132 of 1970 concerning paid annual leave, ratified and made enforceable by Law No. 157 of 10 April 1981) and by European sources (Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000 and adapted in Strasbourg on 12 December 2007; Council Directive No. 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993), so that it could not be rendered null and void ‘without any financial compensation, the enjoyment of leave compromised. ... by ... causes not attributable to the employee’, which include the consequences of the employer's failure to fulfil its organisational obligations in this matter, which can only be found, for the overall coherence of the system, in the substantive and procedural framework as fully delineated by the Court of Justice in the terms already outlined above.
4. It should also be noted that the Court of Justice of the EU on 18 January 2024 in C-218/2022 stated that Article 7 of Directive 203/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for reasons relating to the containment of public expenditure and the needs of public employers, provides that an allowance in lieu may not be paid to the worker in respect of days of paid annual leave accrued both in the last year of employment or in the preceding years, and not taken at the date of termination of the employment relationship, where they voluntarily terminate that employment relationship and has not proved that they did not take the leave during that employment relationship for reasons beyond their control.
3. […]Sul tema dispiega decisiva influenza la normativa eurounitaria in particolare, secondo la Grande Sezione della Corte di Giustizia UE 6 novembre 2018, l'articolo 7 della direttiva 2003/88/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 4 novembre 2003, concernente taluni aspetti dell'organizzazione dell'orario di lavoro, e l'articolo 31, paragrafo 2, della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea che devono essere interpretati nel senso che ostano a una normativa nazionale (...) in applicazione della quale, se il lavoratore non ha chiesto, prima della data di cessazione del rapporto di lavoro, di poter esercitare il suo diritto alle ferie annuali retribuite, detto lavoratore perde, al termine di tale periodo - automaticamente e senza previa verifica del fatto che egli sia stato effettivamente posto dal datore di lavoro, segnatamente con un'informazione adeguata da parte di quest'ultimo, in condizione di esercitare questo diritto- i giorni di ferie annuali retribuite cui aveva diritto ai sensi del diritto dell'Unione alla data di tale cessazione e, correlativamente, il proprio diritto a un'indennità finanziaria per le ferie annuali retribuite e non godute.
3. […] In proposito, la Corte costituzionale con sentenza del 6 maggio 2016, n. 95, ha ritenuto che la legge (art. 5, comma 8, d.l. n. 95/2012, conv. in legge n. 135/2012) non fosse costituzionalmente illegittima, dovendosi interpretare nel senso che la perdita del diritto alla monetizzazione non può aversi allorquando il mancato godimento delle ferie sia incolpevole, non solo perché dovuto ad eventi imprevedibili non dovuti alla volontà del lavoratore, ma anche quando ad essere chiamata in causa sia la "capacità organizzativa del datore di lavoro", nel senso che quest'ultima va esercitata in modo da assicurare che le ferie siano effettivamente godute nel corso del rapporto, quale diritto garantito dalla Carta fondamentale (art. 36, comma 3), dalle fonti internazionali (Convenzione dell'Organizzazione internazionale del lavoro n. 132 del 1970, concernente i congedi annuali pagati, ratificata e resa esecutiva con legge 10 aprile 1981, n. 157) e da quelle europee (art. 31, comma 2, della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea, proclamata a Nizza il 7 dicembre 2000 e adattata a Strasburgo il 12 dicembre 2007; direttiva 23 novembre 1993, n. 93/104/CE del Consiglio), sicché non potrebbe vanificarsi "senza alcuna compensazione economica, il godimento delle ferie compromesso (...) da (...) causa non imputabile al lavoratore", tra cui rientra quanto deriva dall'inadempimento del datore di lavoro ai propri obblighi organizzativi in materia, i quali non possono che essere ravvisati, per coerenza complessiva dell'ordinamento, nell'assetto sostanziale e processuale quale compiutamente delineato dalla Corte di Giustizia nei termini già sopra evidenziati.
4. Va inoltre evidenziato che la Corte di Giustizia UE in data 18 gennaio 2024, in C-218/2022 ha affermato che l'art. 7 della direttiva 203/88/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio del 4 novembre 2003, e l'art. 31, par. 2, della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea devono essere interpretati nel senso che ostano a una normativa nazionale che, per ragioni attinenti al contenimento della spesa pubblica e alle esigenze del datore di lavoro pubblico, prevede il divieto di versare al lavoratore un'indennità finanziaria per i giorni di ferie annuali retribuite maturati sia nell'ultimo anno di impiego, sia negli anni precedenti, e non goduti alla data di cessazione del rapporto di lavoro, qualora egli ponga fine volontariamente a tale rapporto di lavoro e non abbia dimostrato di non avere goduto delle ferie nel corso di detto rapporto di lavoro per ragioni indipendenti dalla sua volontà.