Stadt Wuppertal v Bauer and Willmeroth v Broßonn Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16, EU:C:2018:871
This article provides a concise summary of the Bauer and Brossonn judgments, crucial for law students studying the enforcement of EU Charter rights in national contexts, particularly regarding pension rights.
Facts
Two widows sought payment for annual leave that their husbands had accrued but not taken before dying. One husband had worked for the town of Wuppertal and the other for a private employer. German legal rules were understood to prevent the relevant entitlement passing into the deceased worker’s estate. The employers refused payment. The Federal Labour Court referred questions on the Working Time Directive and Article 31(2) of the Charter, including whether the answer differed where the employer was a private person.
Legal Issue
Does a worker’s death extinguish the financial entitlement associated with accrued paid annual leave, and can the heir enforce the entitlement against a private employer?
Held
The Court held that death could not retroactively deprive the worker of accrued paid annual leave and the corresponding financial entitlement. The heirs could claim an allowance where the employment relationship had ended through death. The national court first had to consider conforming interpretation. If that was impossible, the directive could be relied on against a qualifying public employer. For the private-employer dispute, Article 31(2) itself supplied a mandatory and unconditional right within the scope of EU law, requiring conflicting national law to be disapplied. The reasoning did not give every provision of the Working Time Directive horizontal direct effect.
⭐ Legal Principle
Accrued paid annual leave has a financial component that can pass to a deceased worker’s heirs. Within EU law’s scope, Article 31(2) of the Charter can protect that entitlement in a dispute with a private employer.
Significance
Bauer and Broßonn demonstrate why the source of an enforceable right matters. The directive and the Charter can lead to similar practical outcomes through different routes. Compare AMS, where Article 27 was insufficiently complete, and Max-Planck on opportunities to take leave. The judgment concerns paid annual leave and inheritance of its financial component, not pension reductions or a general entitlement of all relatives to employment benefits.
Common exam questions about this case
Why did the identity of the employer matter?
A directive can be invoked against the state or a qualifying emanation but cannot of itself impose obligations on an ordinary private employer. The paired cases exposed that distinction. The private claim instead depended on the independently enforceable annual-leave right in Article 31(2) of the Charter.
Why did death not simply cancel the leave entitlement?
Accrued paid annual leave includes a financial component. Although the deceased can no longer take rest, allowing death to eliminate that component would retrospectively remove an acquired right. The Court therefore protected an allowance in lieu capable of passing to the worker’s legal heir.
How is Bauer distinguished from AMS?
The Court considered Article 31(2) sufficiently mandatory and unconditional in relation to the annual-leave entitlement. Article 27 in AMS required further legislative expression. The distinction turns on the particular Charter right and claim, rather than a universal rule that Charter provisions either all apply horizontally or none do.