This is a case of French origin which questions a French rule under the French Labour Code that workers must be in employment for a minimum period to qualify for annual leave. In this case, Ms Dominguez claimed entitlement to paid annual leave not taken in respect of the period between November 2005 and January 2007 due to absence from work granted after an accident and, in the alternative, compensation.

The Court of Justice was asked three questions by the French Court of Cassation:

(1) Whether Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices which make entitlement to paid annual leave conditional on a minimum period of ten days' or one month's actual work during the reference period. The Court of Justice said yes: "... entitlement 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..." The French Code is therefore incompatible with the Directive.

(2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that in proceedings between individuals, a national provision which makes entitlement to paid annual leave conditional on a minimum period of actual work during the reference period, which is contrary to Article 7, must be disregarded. The Court of Justice concluded that: - it is for the national court to determine, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, whether it can find an interpretation of that law that allows the absence of the worker due to an accident on the journey to or from work to be treated as being equivalent to one of the situations covered by that article of the Code du travail. - if such an interpretation is not possible, it is for the national court to determine whether, in the light of the legal nature of the respondents in the main proceedings, the direct effect of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 may be relied upon against them. - if the national court is unable to achieve the objective laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, the party injured as a result of domestic law not being in conformity with European Union law can nonetheless rely on the judgment in Francovich and Others in order to obtain, if appropriate, compensation for the loss sustained.

(3) Whether Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, depending on the reason for the worker's absence on sick leave, provides for a period of paid annual leave equal to or exceeding the minimum period of four weeks laid down in that directive. The Court of Justice said such a national provision is acceptable provided that the entitlement is always equal to or exceeds the minimum period of four weeks laid down in Article 7 of that directive.

Click here to read the full judgement.