Max-Planck-Gesellschaft v Shimizu Case C-684/16, judgment of 6 November 2018
Facts
Shimizu worked for the Max Planck organisation in Germany. Before his employment ended, the organisation asked him to take outstanding leave, but he took only two days. He then sought payment for fifty-one remaining days. The employer resisted the claim, and the German Federal Labour Court asked how national rules on loss of untaken leave should be understood under EU law. The reference also raised whether the worker could rely on EU rights against a private employer, given the distinction between a directive's effects and the right to paid annual leave in the Charter.
Legal Issue
Could leave expire merely because the worker had not requested it, and could Article 31(2) of the Charter be enforced against a private employer?
Held
The Court held that leave and the corresponding termination allowance could not be lost automatically without checking whether the employer had genuinely enabled the worker to take leave. The employer must exercise due diligence, including appropriate information, and bears the burden of demonstrating that opportunity. A worker who deliberately declines leave after receiving that opportunity may lose it under lawful national rules. National courts must first attempt a consistent interpretation. If that is impossible, Article 31(2) itself requires protection of the paid-leave right, including disapplication of incompatible legislation in a dispute with a private employer. The decision did not give the Working Time Directive general horizontal direct effect.
⭐ Legal Principle
The Charter's right to paid annual leave can operate in a dispute between private parties within EU law's scope. Loss of leave cannot follow solely from a failure to request it; the employer must establish that the worker had a genuine and informed opportunity to exercise the right.
Significance
Max-Planck is a useful counterpoint to Faccini Dori. The distinction is the source of the enforceable obligation: the Charter provision itself, rather than horizontal direct effect of a directive. It also separates automatic forfeiture from an informed decision not to take available leave. For UK employment problems, the applicable domestic legislation and post-withdrawal rules must be identified separately; the case describes an EU-law holding rather than a universal current UK remedy.
Common exam questions about this case
Did Max-Planck give directives horizontal direct effect?
No. The Court maintained the distinction between a directive and a directly enforceable right contained in primary EU law. In this case Article 31(2) of the Charter supplied the obligation enforceable against a private employer. Treating the outcome as horizontal direct effect of the Working Time Directive would identify the wrong legal source.
Can a worker ever lose leave that was not requested?
Yes, where the employer has genuinely enabled the worker to take it, provided sufficient information and the worker deliberately declines the opportunity. The objection was automatic loss without checking those matters. The employer must demonstrate the required diligence; the worker's silence alone does not prove an informed decision to forgo the entitlement.
What should the national court do before disapplying legislation?
It should consider the whole body of national law and use recognised interpretative methods to achieve conformity with the EU requirements. If a conforming interpretation is impossible, the directly enforceable Charter right supplies the basis for disapplication in the circumstances described. That sequence distinguishes interpretation from setting aside incompatible legislation.