Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Romania / Iasi Court of Appeal / 267/2020

M.F. v. Iasi Clinical Recovery Hospital
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Iasi Court of Appeal
Type
Decision
Decision date
14/07/2020

Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartija

Title IV: Solidarity

Article 31 - Fair and just working conditions

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Romania / Iasi Court of Appeal / 267/2020
    Key facts of the case:
    The case relates to a dispute between a doctor and the hospital he works at. The doctor works part time at the hospital and has a full-time working contract with the Medical University, a function which he also carries out in the hospital. The hospital refuses to allow the doctor annual paid leave, interpreting national legislation as saying that a person is entitled to receive paid leave only from the place of full-time employment. The law that is being applied is Government Decision no. 250/1992, which states that employees who perform another function by accumulation, in addition to the basic function, are entitled to paid leave only from the place where they have the basic functions.
     
    Key legal question raised by the Court:
    The court analyses the question of whether a person is entitled to paid leave from all places of employment, in the event that the person has more than one job.
     
    Outcome of the case:
    The appeal court overturned the decision of the first instance court and found that Government Decision no. 250/1992 is contrary to EU legislation, namely to Directive 2003/88/EC and the Framework Agreement on part-time work. The court found that the express prohibition prescribed in Art. 3 paragraph 3 of G.D. no. 250/1992 is contrary to Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work and the principle of equality, in general, as employees with multiple working contracts are not in a comparable situation to a worker with a single contract. A person with multiple working contracts needs to allocate additional effort to perform their tasks and also needs more time to recover from the additional effort. The Court found that the right to paid leave is an unconditional and imperative right, and as regards employment conditions, part-time workers should not be treated less favourably than full-time workers, unless there are objective reasons to do so. In this present case there were no objective reasons for different treatment and the Court obliged the hospital to compensate M.F. for the days of paid leave denied.
     
     
     
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    Having regard as a matter of priority to the principle of the supremacy of the application of European Union law, initially enshrined by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in its judgment of 15 July 1964 in Flaminio Costa v ENEL, it is noted that at European Union level paragraph 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2012 /C 326/02) enshrined, as a fundamental right, “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.” In its case law, the Court of Justice has stated that “the right of every worker to paid annual leave must be regarded as a principle of Community social law of particular importance from which it cannot be derogated from and whose implementation by the competent national authorities may be carried out only within the limits expressly provided for in Council Directive 93/104 / EC of 23 November 1993 on certain aspects of the organization of working time” (Joined Cases C-350/06 and C-520/06 Gerhard Schultz-Hoff v. Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund And Stringer and Others v. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, paragraph 21). “The right to annual leave, enshrined in Article 31 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, has a dual purpose, namely to enable the worker, on the one hand, to rest from the performance of his duties under his employment contract and, on the other hand, to have a period of relaxation and recreation” (Case C-277/08, Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2009. Francisco Vicente Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA.).

    As regards the part-time worker's right to leave, the Court of Justice has ruled that “the right to paid annual leave may be granted in proportion to the period worked”; The Court has ruled that Article 31 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 7 (1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as not opposing national provisions or practices, such as a social plan concluded by its works council, under which the right to paid annual leave of a worker whose working time is reduced is calculated according to the pro rata temporis rule. Consequently, in relation to all the above considerations, considering the execution in kind by the plaintiff of the non-patrimonial component of the right to leave, the principle of proportional granting of leave in relation to the fraction of norm actually worked, in light of Art. 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Art. 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC, it is necessary to admit the appeal regarding the request to oblige the defendant Clinical Rehabilitation Hospital Iași to pay the annual rest allowance.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Având în vedere prioritar principiul supremației de aplicare a dreptului Uniunii Europene, consacrat inițial de Curtea de Justiție a Comunităților Europene prin Hotărârea din data de 15 iulie 1964 în cauza Flaminio Costa împotriva E.N.E.L , se rețin că la nivelul Uniunii Europene, prin dispozițiile art.31 alin.2 din Carta Drepturilor Fundamentale a Uniunii Europene (2012/C 326/02) s-a consacrat, cu titlu de drept fundamental, „ Orice lucrător are dreptul la o limitare a duratei maxime de muncă și la perioade de odihnă zilnică și săptămânală, precum și la o perioadă anuală de concediu plătit.” In jurisprudența sa, Curtea de Justiție a arătat că „dreptul fiecărui lucrător la concediul anual plătit trebuie considerat un principiu al dreptului social comunitar de o importanță deosebită de la care nu se poate deroga și al cărui punere în aplicare de către autoritățile naționale competente poate fi efectuată numai în limitele prevăzute în mod expres chiar în Directiva 93/104/CE a Consiliului din 23 noiembrie 1993 privind anumite aspecte ale organizării timpului de lucru” ( Cauzele conexate C-350/2006 și C-520/06, HOTĂRÂREA CURȚII din 20.01.2009 Gerhard Schultz ‑ Hoff (C ‑ 350/06) împotriva Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund și Stringer și alții (C‑ 520/06) împotriva Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, paragraf 21). „Dreptul la concediul anual, consacrat la articolul 31 alineatul (2) din Carta drepturilor fundamentale a Uniunii Europene și la articolul 7 din Directiva 2003/88, are o dublă finalitate, și anume de a‑i permite lucrătorului, pe de o parte, să se odihnească în urma îndeplinirii sarcinilor care îi revin în temeiul contractului său de muncă și, pe de altă parte, să dispună de o perioadă de destindere și de recreere ” ( Cauza C‑ 277/08, HOTĂRÂREA CURȚII din 10 septembrie 2009, în procedura Francisco Vicente Pereda împotriva Madrid Movilidad SA ) . În ceea ce privește dreptul la concediu al lucrătorului pe fracțiune de normă , Curtea de Justiție a statuat că „ dreptul la concediu anual plătit poate fi acordat proporțional cu perioada lucrată; Curtea a stabilit ca articolul 31 alineatul (2) din Carta drepturilor fundamentale a Uniunii Europene si articolul 7 alineatul (1) din Directiva 2003/88/CE a Parlamentului European si a Consiliului din 4 noiembrie 2003 privind anumite aspecte ale organizării timpului de lucru trebuie interpretate in sensul ca nu se opun unor dispoziții sau practici naționale, precum un plan social încheiat ________________________ comitetul său de

    întreprindere, în temeiul cărora dreptul la concediu anual plătit al unui lucrător căruia ii este redus timpul de lucru este calculat potrivit regulii pro rata temporis . În consecință, în raport de toate considerentele anterior expuse, având în vedere executarea în natură de către reclamant a componentei nepatrimoniale a dreptului la concediu, de principiul acordării proportionale a concediului în raport de fracțiunea de normă efectiv lucrata, în lumina dispozițiilor art. 31 din Carta Drepturilor Fundamentale a Uniunii Europene și art.7 din Directiva 2003/88/CE, se impune admiterea apelului în ceea ce privește cererea de obligare a pârâtului Spitalul Clinic de Recuperare Iași la plata indemnizației concediului anual de odihnă.