Court clarifies role of national courts when nationalprovision conflicts with European Union law (Uitspraak Eruopees Hof van Justitie)
Case C-282/10, Maribel Dominguez
Court clarifies role of national courts when national provision conflicts with European Union law
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of Art. 7 of the Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88)
The national
court asked, inter alia, whether Art. 7 of the Working Time Directive
must be interpreted as meaning that in proceedings between individuals a
national provision which made entitlement to paid annual left conditional
on a minimum period of actual work during the reference period, which
was contrary to Art.7, must be disregarded.
The Court held that the question whether a national provision must be disapplied in as much as it conflicts with European Union law arose only if no compatible interpretation of that provision proves possible.
The
Courtre iterated that when national courts applied domestic law they
were bound to interpret it, so far as possible, in the light of the
wording and the purposeof the directive concerned in order to achieve
the result sought by the directive and consequently complied with Art.
288(3) TFEU.
The Court held that this obligation to interpret national law in conformity with European Union lawwas inherent in the system of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, since it permitted national courts, for the matters within their jurisdiction, to ensure the full effectiveness of European Union law when they determined the disputes before them (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer and Others (2004);Joined Cases C-378/07 to C-380/07 Angelidaki and Others (2009);and Case C-555/07 Kücükdeveci (2010)).
The Court held that this obligation to interpret national law in conformity with European Union lawwas inherent in the system of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, since it permitted national courts, for the matters within their jurisdiction, to ensure the full effectiveness of European Union law when they determined the disputes before them (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer and Others (2004);Joined Cases C-378/07 to C-380/07 Angelidaki and Others (2009);and Case C-555/07 Kücükdeveci (2010)).
Interpreting in conformity with EU law
The
Court admitted that this principle of interpreting national law in
conformity with European Union law had certain limitations. Thus the
obligation on a national court to refer to the content of a directive
when interpreting and applying the relevant rules of domestic law was
limited by general principles of law and it could not serve as the basis
for an interpretation of national law contra legem (seeCase C-268/06 Impact (2008).
In
the dispute in the main proceedings, the national court stated that it
had encountered such a limitation. According to that court, the first
paragraph of Art.L. 223-2 of the Code du travail, which made entitlement
to paid annual left conditional on a minimum of one month’s actual work
during the reference period, was not amenable to an interpretation that
was compatible with Art. 7of Directive 2003/88.
The
Court of Justice clarified that the principle that national law must be
interpreted in conformity with European Union law also required national
courts to do whatever lies within their jurisdiction, taking the whole
body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative
methods recognised by domesticlaw, with a view to ensuring that the
directive in question was fully effective and achieving an outcome
consistedent with the objective pursued by it (seeCase C-212/04 Adeneler and Others (2006)).
The
Court pointed out that Article L. 223-4 of the Code du travail, which
provided an exemption from the requirement of actual work during the
reference period in respect of certain periods of absence from work, was
an integral part of the domestic law to be taken into consideration by
the French courts.
The
Court held that if Art. L. 223-4 of the Code du travail were to be
interpreted by the national court as meaning that a period of absence due
to an accident on the journey to or from work must be treated as being
equivalent to a period o fabsence due to an accident at work in order to
give full effect to Art. 7 of Directive 2003/88, that court would not
encounter the limitation as regards interpreting Art. L. 223-2 of the
Code du travail in accordance with European Union law.
Art.
7 of Directive 2003/88 did not make any distinction between workers who
were absenton sick left during the reference period and those who had
actually worked in the course of that period. It followed that the right
to paid annual left of a worker who was absent from work on health
grounds during the reference period could not be made subject by a Member
State to a condition concerning the obligation actually to have worked
during that period. Thus, according to Art.7 of Directive 2003/88, any
worker, whether he be on sick left during the reference period as a
result of an accident at his place of work or elsewhere,or as the result
of sickness of whatever nature or origin, could not have his entitlement
to at least four weeks” paid annual left affected.
The
Court thus concluded that it was for the national court to determine,
taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the
interpretative methods recognised by domestic law with a view to
ensuring that Directive2003/88 was fully effective and achieving an
outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it, whether it could
found an interpretation of that law that allowed 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.
Direct effect
In
the event that such an interpretation was not possible, it was necessary
to consider whether Art. 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 had a direct effect
and, if so,whether Ms Dominguez might relied on that direct effect
against the respondents in the main proceedings, in particular her
employer, the CICOA, in view of their legal nature.
The
Court reiterated that, whenever the provisions of a directive appear, so
far as theirsubject-matter was concerned, to be unconditional and
sufficiently precise,they might be relied upon before the national
courts by individuals against the State where the latter had failed to
implement the directive in domestic law by the end of the period
prescribed or where it had failed to implement the directive correctly.
The
Court held that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 fulfils those criteria as
it imposed on Member States, in unequivocal terms, a precise obligation
as to the result to be achieved that was not coupled with any condition
regarding application of the rule laid down by it, which gave every
worker entitlement to at least four weeks” paid annual left.
According to
the Court, even though Art. 7 of Directive 2003/88 left the Member
States adegree of latitude when they adopted the conditions for
entitlement to, and granting of, the paid annual left which it provided
for, that did not alter the precise and unconditional nature of the
obligation laid down in that Article .
Since
Art.7(1) of Directive 2003/88 fulfilled the conditions required to
produce a directeffect, it should also be noted that the CICOA, one of
the two respondents inthe main proceedings and Ms Dominguez’s employer,
was a body operating in thefield of social security.
Horizontal direct effect
It
was true that the Court had consistently held that a directive could not
of itself impose obligations on an individual and could not therefore be
relied on as such against an individual (see, inter alia, Case C-91/92 FacciniDori (1994) ; Case C-192/94 El Corte Inglés (1996) ).
The
Courthowever recalled that where a person was able to rely on a
Directive as against an individual but as against the State he might do
so regardless of thecapacity in which the latter was acting, whether as
employer or as public authority. In either case it was necessary to
prevent the State from taking advantage of its own failure to comply with
European Union law (see, interalia, Case 152/84 Marshall (1986); Case C-188/89 Fosterand Others (1990); and Case C-343/98 Collino and Chiappero (2000)).
The
Court thus held that the entities against which the provisions of a
directive that were capable of having direct effect might be relied upon
included a body,whatever its legal form, which had been made
responsible, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing a
public service under the control of the State and had for that purpose
special powers beyond those which result fromthe normal rules applicable
in relations between individuals (see, inter alia, CaseC-356/05 Farrell (2007)).
Liability
The
Court concluded that even a clear, precise and unconditional provision
of a directive seeking to confer rights or impose obligations on
individuals could not of itself applied in proceedings exclusively
between private parties. In such a situation, the party injured as a
result of domestic law not being in conformity with European Union law
could none the less relied on the judgmentin Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others (1991) in order to obtain, if appropriate, compensation for the loss sustained.
Law blog Klik op +1 als u dit een interessant artikel vindt en Google zal het dan beter zichtbaar maken in de zoekresultaten.
Reacties