PROBLEMA JURIDICĂ
Compatibilitatea unei interdicții de compensare a concediului neefectuat al unui angajat public, motivată prin cheltuieli publice și necesități de organizare, cu dreptul Uniunii.
Faptele relevante
Litigiul identificat oficial este BU împotriva Comune di Copertino.
Soluția
Art. 7 din Directiva 2003/88 și art. 31 alin. (2) din Cartă se opun interdicției descrise de hotărâre, bazate pe cheltuieli publice și organizare, privind plata la încetarea voluntară a concediului dobândit și neefectuat.
Motivarea, pe scurt
Punctul 26 identifică minimul de 4 săptămâni; punctele 47–48 disting imposibilitatea efectuării de abținerea deliberată în cunoștință de cauză; punctul 50 cere angajatorului să dovedească diligențele pentru efectuarea efectivă. Numai aceste fragmente oficiale sunt analizate.
Ce putem învăța și ce limite are
Explică de ce o interdicție bugetară privind compensarea concediului reclamă și o analiză a protecției europene, cu păstrarea diferenței dintre minimul european și soldul concret.
Reproducere oficială parțială FRA; motivarea integrală CURIA/EUR-Lex a rămas inaccesibilă.
Nu se prezumă plata automată a tuturor celor 35 de zile lucrătoare prevăzute în statutul român.
Ghiduri asociate
Textul hotărârii
Hotărârea poate fi consultată la sursa publică indicată. Fișa de pe această pagină rezumă problema juridică și nu înlocuiește textul hotărârii.
Texte citate în ghiduri 4 EXTRASE
Extrasele exacte din hotărâre la care trimit ghidurile.
punctele 47–48, reproduse de FRA · limba originalului: en
47 In addition, it should be borne in mind that the Member States may not derogate from the principle flowing from Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter, that the right to paid annual leave acquired cannot be lost at the end of the leave year and/or of a carry-over period fixed by national law, when the worker has been unable to take his or her leave (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 November 2018, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, C‑684/16, EU:C:2018:874, paragraph 54). 48 However, where the worker has refrained from taking his or her paid annual leave deliberately and in full knowledge of the ensuing consequences, after having been given the opportunity actually to exercise his or her right thereto, Article 31(2) of the Charter does not preclude the loss of that right or, in the event of the termination of the employment relationship, the corresponding absence of an allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken, without the employer being required to force that worker to actually exercise that right (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 November 2018, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, C‑684/16, EU:C:2018:874, paragraph 56).
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗punctul 26, reprodus de FRA · limba originalului: en
26 Thus, Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, which provides that Member States are to take the measures necessary to ensure that every worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks in accordance with the conditions for entitlement to, and granting of, such leave laid down by national legislation and/or practice, reflects and gives effect to the fundamental right to a period of paid annual leave enshrined in Article 31(2) of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 November 2021, job-medium, C‑233/20, EU:C:2021:960, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗punctul 50, reprodus de FRA · limba originalului: en
50 It follows that, should the employer not be able to show that it has exercised all due diligence in order to enable the worker actually to take the paid annual leave to which he or she is entitled, which is for the referring court to verify, it must be held that the loss of the right to such leave at the end of the reference period or the authorised carry-over period, and, in the event of the termination of the employment relationship, the corresponding absence of a payment of an allowance in lieu of annual leave not taken constitutes a failure to have regard, respectively, to Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 November 2018, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, C‑684/16, EU:C:2018:874, paragraphs 46 and 55).
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗punctul 52 și dispozitivul, reproduse de FRA · limba originalului: en
52 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for reasons relating to the control of public expenditure and the organisational needs of the public employer, prohibits the payment to a worker of an allowance in lieu of the days of paid annual leave acquired, during both the last year of employment and previous years, which were not taken at the date on which the employment relationship ended, where that worker voluntarily terminates that employment relationship and has not shown that he or she had not taken his or her leave during that employment relationship for reasons beyond his or her control.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗
Informațiile nu constituie consultanță juridică.