Latvia / Civil Cases Department of the Senate [of the Supreme Court] of the Republic of Latvia / C771426723, SKC-113/2025
-
Latvia / Civil Cases Department of the Senate [of the Supreme Court] of the Republic of Latvia / C771426723, SKC-113/2025
key facts of the case:
The plaintiff was a board member of a limited liability company. He was removed from this position due to the loss of trust. He then filed a lawsuit against the company seeking, amongst other claims, compensation for paid annual leave not taken.
The dispute about the compensation for paid annual leave centred on the question whether the dispute should be examined under the Labour Law guaranteeing the right to compensation for paid annual leave not taken or the Commercial Law that does not include such a right.
Key legal question raised by the court:
The Court concluded that the Labour Law was not applicable to the case at issue, whereas the applicable legal framework – the Commercial Law – did not guarantee the right to compensation for paid annual leave not taken. The Court further examined whether a member of the board of a limited liability company did, nonetheless, have the right to paid annual leave and the right to compensation for the paid annual leave not taken.
Outcome of the case:
Relying on the principle “iura novit curia” the Court noted that an incorrect reliance on a legal provision by the plaintiff did not deprive the plaintiff of legal protection. The Court further noted that the right to paid annual leave was enshrined in both Article 107 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Further relying on the elaboration of this right in 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 case-law of the Court of Justice of European Union, the Court concluded that a member of the board of a limited liability company could be regarded as a worker, depending on the circumstances of the case (which ought to be assessed by the appellate court).
With respect to the right to compensation for the annual leave not taken, the Court, in accordance with the case-law of the CJEU, referred to the ILO Convention 132 concerning Annual Holidays with Pay (revised) and concluded that it fell on the appellate court to determine whether the worker had the possibility of making use of the right to leave.
Lastly, the Court noted that national law could not be interpreted in a manner that would be compatible with Directive 2003/88/EC and Article 31(2) of the Charter, as the right to paid annual leave was clearly not envisaged in national law. Therefore, considering that Article 31(2) of the Charter required the Court to ensure the legal protection arising from this legal norm and to guarantee its full effect, the Court concluded that the specific provision of the Directive 2003/88/EC regulating the right to annual leave was directly applicable in the legal relationships between companies and their board members.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgment of the appellate court requiring it to determine, based on the criteria of Directive 2003/88/EC and the case-law of the CJEU, whether the plaintiff had been a worker and had had a right to paid annual leave. As of 15 December 2025, the case is pending before the appellate court.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
13. In general, the right to paid annual leave as a fundamental right is enshrined in both Article 107 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia (hereinafter – the Constitution) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
When analysing Article 107 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court recognized that the term "employee" applies not only to employees who are employed on the basis of an employment contract regulated by the Labor Law, but also to other persons in an employment relationship. Thus, employees are not only persons employed on the basis of an employment contract, but also other persons subject to state social insurance. Consequently, the term "employee" can also be applied to positions and professions in which the legal relationship of employment is not established by an employment contract but is based on another legal basis (see Constitutional Court judgment of 7 November 2013 in Case No. 2012-24-03, paragraph 16.2.1). Thus, a member of the board of a capital company may also be considered an employee within the meaning of Article 107 of the Constitution.
However, as Article 107 of the Constitution does not regulate an employee's right to compensation for paid annual leave not taken, the Senate must examine whether and how the regulation of the right to paid annual leave enshrined in European Union and international law is applicable in the circumstances of the case under review.
14. Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides in general terms that every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods, and to an annual period of paid leave. The minimum safety and health requirements for the organization of working time in the European Union are laid down in Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 4, 2003, concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time (hereinafter referred to as Directive 2003/88/EC).
14.1. The aim of Directive 2003/88/EC is to lay down minimum requirements aimed at improving the living and working conditions of workers by approximating the provisions of the Member States, including those relating to the length of working time (see judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 October 2023 in Case C-57/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:770, paragraph 18). In accordance with Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2003/88/EC, it also applies to annual rest periods, namely holidays.
14.2. Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC provides that Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that every worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks, in accordance with the conditions for entitlement to such leave laid down by each Member State.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has recognized that Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC reflects and gives concrete expression to the fundamental right to paid annual leave enshrined in Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (see, for example, the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 18 January 2024 in the case of Comune di Copertino, C-218/22, ECLI:EU:C:2024:51, paragraph 26). Thus, the Member States of the European Union are required to lay down in their national legislation the conditions for granting and exercising the right to paid annual leave, specifying the specific circumstances in which workers may exercise that right (see the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 November 2018 in Case C-684/16 Max Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, ECLI:EU:C:2018:874, paragraph 34 and the case law cited therein).
14.3. It follows from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union that, for the purposes of applying Directive 2003/88/EC, the concept of ‘worker’ must not be interpreted in accordance with the law of the Member States, but has an autonomous scope in European Union law. The concept of ‘worker’ must be defined in accordance with objective criteria characterising the legal relationship of employment, taking into account the rights and obligations of the persons concerned. The essential feature of an employment relationship is that a natural person performs work for and under the direction of another person for a certain period of time in return for remuneration (see the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 October 2023 in Case C-57/22, Ředitelství silnic a dálnic, ECLI:EU:C:2023:770, paragraph 20). An employment relationship implies a relationship of subordination between the employee and the employer, the existence of which must be assessed in each specific case on the basis of all the elements and circumstances characterizing the relationship between the parties (see judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 10 September 2015 in Holterman Ferho Exploitatie and Others, C 47/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:574, paragraph 46, judgment of 20 November 2018 in the case of Sindicatul Familia Constanţa, C-147/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:926, paragraph 42).
14.4. The Court of Justice of the European Union, assessing the relationship between a member of the board of directors and a capital company, has recognized that a member of the board of directors of a capital company who provides services to the capital company in return for remuneration (which has appointed him to the position of board member and of which he is an integral part), who performs his activities under the management or control of another structure of that capital company and who may be dismissed from his duties at any time without restriction, qualifies as an ‘employee’ within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (see the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 10 September 2014 in Case C-270/13 Haralambidis, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2185, paragraph 41, concerning Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with reference to the judgment of 11 November 2010 in Case C-232/09 Danosa, ECLI:EU:C:2010:674, paragraph 51, concerning Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers women who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding).
Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the applicant meets the above criteria depends on the legal assessment of the facts established in the case, while the clarification of the circumstances to be analysed in accordance with the third part of Article 450 of the Civil Procedure Law does not fall within the competence of the court of cassation.
In summary, the Senate recognizes that a member of the board of a capital company may also be an "employee" under certain circumstances within the meaning of Directive 2003/88/EC, who, in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC, is entitled to
…
16. In general, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, directives impose obligations on the Member States to which they are addressed as regards the result to be achieved, but leave it to the national authorities to determine the form and methods of implementation. Namely, directives are addressed to Member States, not private individuals, and therefore, as a general rule, the provisions of directives are not applicable in legal relations between private individuals. Therefore, the Senate considers it necessary to make an additional reference in this judgment to the application of European Union law.
Namely, the Court of Justice of the European Union recognized that if the legal framework of a Member State cannot be interpreted in such a way to ensure its compatibility with Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which corresponds to the situation in the present case (see paragraph 11.2 of this judgment), it follows from that provision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that the court must, within the limits of its jurisdiction, ensure the legal protection resulting from that provision and guarantee its full effectiveness (see paragraph 80 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 November 2018 in Case C-684/16 Max Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, ECLI:EU:C:2018:874).
Thus, Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/88/EC, based on Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is directly applicable to legal relationships between companies and their board members, provided that the board member in question meets the definition of ‘worker’ within the meaning of Directive 2003/88/EC.
17. Since the court of appeal did not examine whether the claimant fell within the concept of ‘worker’ within the meaning of Directive 2003/88/EC, nor did it consider the applicability of Directive 2003/88/EC and the provisions of Convention No 132 of the International Labour Organization of 24 , the Senate finds that the court of appeal, in adjudicating the claim for compensation for unused vacation time, has not fully complied with the obligation set out in the first part of Article 190 of the Civil Procedure Law to base its judgment on substantive legal norms, as well as the obligation set out in the second sentence of the fifth part of Article 193 , which requires that the legal assessment of the established facts of the case be indicated in the grounds for the judgment, which in turn could have led to an incorrect adjudication of the case also in the part concerning the recovery of compensation for unused vacation time.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)
13. Vispārīgi tiesības uz ikgadēju apmaksātu atvaļinājumu ir nostiprinātas pamattiesību līmenī gan Latvijas Republikas Satversmes (turpmāk – Satversme) 107. pantā, gan Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartas 31. panta 2. punktā.
Konkretizējot Satversmes 107. pantu, Satversmes tiesa ir atzinusi, ka jēdziens „darbinieks” attiecas ne vien uz darbiniekiem, kas nodarbināti uz Darba likumā regulētā darba līguma pamata, bet arī uz citām nodarbinātības attiecībās esošām personām. Tādējādi darba ņēmēji ir ne vien tās personas, kas nodarbinātas uz darba līguma pamata, bet arī citas valsts sociālajai apdrošināšanai pakļautas nodarbinātās personas. Līdz ar to jēdzienu „darbinieks” var attiecināt arī uz tādiem amatiem un profesijām, kurās nodarbinātības tiesiskās attiecības netiek dibinātas ar darba līgumu, bet balstās uz cita tiesiska pamata (sk. Satversmes tiesas 2013. gada 7. novembra sprieduma lietā Nr. 2012-24-03 16.2.1. apakšpunktu). Tādējādi arī kapitālsabiedrības valdes loceklis var tikt uzskatīts par darbinieku Satversmes 107. panta izpratnē.
Tomēr, ņemot vērā to, ka Satversmes 107. pantā nav regulētas darbinieka tiesības uz kompensāciju par neizmantotu ikgadējo apmaksāto atvaļinājumu, Senātam jāpārbauda, vai un kā Eiropas Savienības un starptautiskajās tiesībās nostiprinātais tiesību uz apmaksātu atvaļinājumu regulējums ir piemērojams izskatāmās lietas apstākļos.
14. Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartas 31. panta 2. punkts vispārīgi noteic, ka ikvienam darba ņēmējam ir tiesības uz maksimālā darba laika ierobežošanu, uz atpūtas laiku ik dienu un ik nedēļu, kā arī uz vienu ikgadēju apmaksātu atvaļinājumu. Savukārt minimālās drošības un veselības prasības darba laika organizēšanai Eiropas Savienībā nosaka Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2003. gada 4. novembra direktīva 2003/88/EK par konkrētiem darba laika organizēšanas aspektiem (turpmāk – Direktīva 2003/88/EK).
14.1. Direktīvas 2003/88/EK mērķis ir noteikt minimālās prasības, kuras vērstas uz darba ņēmēju dzīves un darba apstākļu uzlabošanu, tuvinot dalībvalstu noteikumus, tostarp par darba laika ilgumu (sk. Eiropas Savienības Tiesas 2023. gada 12. oktobra sprieduma lietā C-57/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:770, 18. punktu). Atbilstoši Direktīvas 2003/88/EK 1. panta 2. punkta „a” apakšpunktam tā attiecas arī uz ikgadējiem atpūtas laikposmiem, proti, atvaļinājumiem.
14.2. Direktīvas 2003/88/EK 7. panta 1. punkts noteic, ka dalībvalstis veic vajadzīgos pasākumus, lai nodrošinātu, ka ikvienam darba ņēmējam ir tiesības uz ikgadēju apmaksātu, vismaz četras nedēļas ilgu atvaļinājumu saskaņā ar nosacījumiem par tiesībām uz šāda atvaļinājuma piešķiršanu, ko nosaka katras dalībvalsts tiesību akti vai prakse.
Eiropas Savienības Tiesa ir atzinusi, ka Direktīvas 2003/88/EK 7. panta 1. punkts atspoguļo un konkretizē Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartas 31. panta 2. punktā nostiprinātās pamattiesības uz ikgadēju apmaksātu atvaļinājumu (sk., piemēram, Eiropas Savienības Tiesas 2024. gada 18. janvāra sprieduma lietā „Comune di Copertino”, C-218/22, ECLI:EU:C:2024:51, 26. punktu). Tādējādi Eiropas Savienības dalībvalstīm noteikts pienākums savos valsts tiesību aktos paredzēt tiesību uz ikgadēju apmaksātu atvaļinājumu piešķiršanas un izmantošanas nosacījumus, precizējot konkrētus apstākļus, kādos darba ņēmēji var šīs tiesības izmantot (sk. Eiropas Savienības Tiesas 2018. gada 6. novembra sprieduma lietā „Max PlanckGesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften”, C - 684/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:874, 34. punktu un tajā minēto judikatūru).
14.3. No Eiropas Savienības Tiesas judikatūras izriet, ka Direktīvas 2003/88/EK piemērošanas mērķiem jēdzienu „darba ņēmējs” nedrīkst interpretēt saskaņā ar dalībvalstu tiesībām, proti, tam Eiropas Savienības tiesībās ir autonoms tvērums. Jēdziens „darba ņēmējs” ir jādefinē saskaņā ar darba tiesiskās attiecības raksturojošiem objektīviem kritērijiem, ņemot vērā attiecīgo personu tiesības un pienākumus. Būtiskā darba tiesisko attiecību pazīme ir tā, ka fiziska persona noteiktā laikposmā citas personas labā un vadībā veic darbu, pretī saņemot atalgojumu (sk. Eiropas Savienības Tiesas 2023. gada 12. oktobra sprieduma lietā „Ředitelství silnic a dálnic”, C-57/22, ECLI:EU:C:2023:770, 20. punktu). Darba tiesiskās attiecības paredz pakļautības saikni starp darba ņēmēju un darba devēju, kuras esība ir jāvērtē katrā konkrētā gadījumā atbilstoši visiem elementiem un apstākļiem, kas raksturo starp pusēm pastāvošās attiecības (sk. Eiropas Savienības Tiesas 2015. gada 10. septembra sprieduma lietā „Holterman Ferho Exploitatie u.c.”, C 47/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:574, 46. punktu, 2018. gada 20. novembra sprieduma lietā „Sindicatul Familia Constanţa”, C-147/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:926, 42. punktu).
14.4. Eiropas Savienības Tiesa, izvērtējot saikni, kāda pastāv starp valdes locekli un kapitālsabiedrību, ir atzinusi, ka kapitālsabiedrības valdes loceklis, kurš pret atlīdzību sniedz pakalpojumus kapitālsabiedrībai (kura viņu ir iecēlusi valdes locekļa amatā un kuras neatņemama sastāvdaļa viņš ir), kurš īsteno savu darbību citas šīs kapitālsabiedrības struktūras pārvaldībā vai kontrolē un kurš jebkurā brīdī bez ierobežojumiem var tikt atsaukts no tā pienākumu pildīšanas, atbilst tam, lai tiktu kvalificēts par „darba ņēmēju” Eiropas Savienības Tiesas judikatūras izpratnē (sk. Eiropas Savienības Tiesas 2014. gada 10. septembra sprieduma lietā „Haralambidis”, C270/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2185, 41. punktu attiecībā uz Līguma par Eiropas Savienības darbību 45. pantu ar atsauci uz 2010. gada 11. novembra sprieduma lietā „Danosa”, C 232/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:674, 51. punktu attiecībā uz Padomes 1992. gada 19. oktobra Direktīvu 92/85/EEK par pasākumu ieviešanu, lai veicinātu drošības un veselības aizsardzības darbā uzlabošanu strādājošām grūtniecēm, sievietēm, kas strādā pēcdzemdību periodā, vai strādājošām sievietēm, kas baro bērnu ar krūti).
Tas, vai izskatāmās lietas apstākļos prasītājs atbilst iepriekš norādītajām pazīmēm, atkarīgs no lietā konstatēto apstākļu juridiskā novērtējuma, savukārt analizējamo apstākļu noskaidrošana atbilstoši Civilprocesa likuma 450. panta trešajai daļai neietilpst kasācijas instances tiesas kompetencē.
Rezumējot minēto, Senāts atzīst, ka arī kapitālsabiedrības valdes loceklis noteiktos apstākļos var būt „darba ņēmējs” Direktīvas 2003/88/EK izpratnē, kuram saskaņā ar Direktīvas 2003/88/EK 7. panta 1. punktu ir tiesības uz ikgadēju apmaksātu atvaļinājumu. Savukārt tas, vai prasītājs ir uzskatāms par „darba ņēmēju” iepriekšminētajā izpratnē, noskaidrojams, izskatot lietu pēc būtības.
...
16. Vispārīgi atbilstoši Līguma par Eiropas Savienības darbību 288. panta trešajai daļai direktīvas tām dalībvalstīm, kurām tās adresētas, uzliek saistības attiecībā uz sasniedzamo rezultātu, bet ļauj šo valstu iestādēm noteikt to īstenošanas formas un metodes. Proti, direktīvu adresāti ir dalībvalstis, nevis privātpersonas, tāpēc privātpersonu savstarpējās tiesiskajās attiecībās direktīvu noteikumi pēc vispārīgā principa nav piemērojami. Tāpēc Senāts uzskata par nepieciešamu šajā spriedumā papildus izdarīt norādi par Eiropas Savienības tiesiskā regulējuma piemērošanu.
Proti, Eiropas Savienības Tiesa ir atzinusi, ka tad, ja dalībvalsts tiesisko regulējumu nav iespējams interpretēt tādējādi, lai tiktu nodrošināta tā saderība ar Direktīvas 2003/88/EK 7. pantu un Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartas 31. panta 2. punktu, kas atbilst situācijai izskatāmajā lietā (sk. šā sprieduma 11.2. punktu), no minētās Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartas normas izriet, ka tiesai savas kompetences ietvaros jānodrošina no šīs tiesību normas izrietošā tiesiskā aizsardzība un jāgarantē tās pilna iedarbība (sk. Eiropas Savienības Tiesas 2018. gada 6. novembra sprieduma lietā „Max Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften”, C-684/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:874, 80. punktu).
Tādējādi Direktīvas 2003/88/EK 7. panta 1. un 2. punkts, pamatojoties uz Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību hartas 31. panta 2. punktu, ir tieši piemērojams tiesiskajās attiecībās starp kapitālsabiedrībām un to valdes locekļiem, ja vien konkrētais valdes loceklis atbilst „darba ņēmēja” jēdzienam Direktīvas 2003/88/EK izpratnē.
17. Tā kā apelācijas instances tiesa nav pārbaudījusi prasītāja atbilstību „darba ņēmēja” jēdzienam Direktīvas 2003/88/EK izpratnē, kā arī nav apsvērusi Direktīvas 2003/88/EK un Starptautiskās darba organizācijas 1970. gada 24. jūnija Konvencijas Nr. 132 par apmaksātu ikgadējo atvaļinājumu (pārskatītā redakcija) tiesību normu piemērošanas iespējamību, Senāts atzīst, ka apelācijas instances tiesa, izspriežot prasību daļā par neizmantotā atvaļinājuma kompensācijas piedziņu, ir nepilnīgi izpildījusi Civilprocesa likuma 190. panta pirmajā daļā ietverto pienākumu, taisot spriedumu, to pamatot ar materiālo tiesību normām, kā arī Civilprocesa likuma 193. panta piektās daļas otrajā teikumā paredzēto prasību sprieduma motīvu daļā norādīt konstatēto lietas apstākļu juridisko novērtējumu, kas savukārt varēja novest pie lietas nepareizas izspriešanas arī prasības daļā par neizmantotā atvaļinājuma kompensācijas piedziņu.