European Union Law

This article discusses the implementation of the directive of 2010/52 of the European Union in Ruritania and the modifications made by the state. It also analyzes whether the unpaid leaves of John and Emma cancelled by Ruritania are justified or not.

Running head: EUROPEAN UNION LAW
European Union Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1EUROPEAN UNION LAW
The directive of 2010/52 of the European Union mandates that employees are entitled to
four weeks of unpaid leave per year. The clause attached to the directive of giving unpaid leave
is that the employee must have been employed for at least one year to benefit from the directive.
Ruritania, a member state of the European Union has implemented the directive with a few
modifications. The modifications of the directive as implemented by Ruritania states that the
benefit of the directive can only be enjoyed by companies which have a minimum of 20
employees and the employer has the right to reject or cancel the unpaid leave on grounds of
benefit of the business of the company. The issues related to the present fact are whether
Ruritania is justified in making exceptions to the already existing directive and whether the
unpaid leaves of John and Emma cancelled by Ruritania are justified or not.
Every directive of the European Union which has been directed at the member state is
done with the goal of implementing certain rules and regulations that the Parliament wishes the
Member States to follow1. These directives come with deadlines, that is, a directive has to be
implemented by the national state within a stipulated time and then inform the Commission
regarding the same2. The deadline is made mandatory because if strict adherence is not
maintained with regards to the implementation of the directive within a strict time frame, the
European Union Commissioner can take actions3. In the present case, the deadline for
implementation was set at 1st January, 2016. Compliance with European Law is done to ensure
that the laws mandated by the EU are effectively implemented across the state and no member
states are treated unfairly and they cannot cry discrimination later4. These directives are different
from regulations because directives are not binding per se but are discretionary. Article 288 of
1 Cini, Michelle. European union politics. Oxford University Press, 2016. Pg 125
2 Nugent, Neill. The government and politics of the European Union. Palgrave, 2017. Pg 98
3 Pollack, Mark A. Policy-making in the European Union. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015. Pg 112
4 Jeffery, Charlie. The regional dimension of the European Union: towards a third level in Europe?. Routledge,
2015. Pg 75

2EUROPEAN UNION LAW
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that a directive shall be binding in
view of the result that should be achieved and it shall be binding on the national states but the
member states have the discretionary power to amend the directive as per the national rules of its
country5. The directives are incorporated into the national law by way of transposition. The
member states get a lot of leeway in adopting these directives, that is, they can modify certain
aspects of the law in accordance with the needs of their own country6. The benefit of directives is
that, member states can take into consideration the needs of their country-with specific regard to
their social political and economic needs. As was held in the case of Van Gend en Loos V
Nederlandse Administratie der Belastigen, it was held that in cases of failure on the part of the
member states to comply with the European Union directives, strict penalties will be attached to
them and they will be liable.
In the present case, there is a minimum period of employment which is a precondition to
get an unpaid leave. The right to get unpaid leave is a cornerstone of human rights in the light of
labour law. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is the legal document that
takes into account the health of the workers and employees under the European Union laws. The
right to unpaid leave is guaranteed to the citizens of the European Union and the member states
are obligated to follow the directives7. The only way a citizen is restricted to be benefitted from
the directive is if he is precluded from the benefit by any provision in the national law which is
contradicting with the EU law. Whenever there is a conflict between the member state and the
EU, and the employer is a governmental body, the national judge is the authority in setting aside
the conflicting provision of that national law. The national judge in solving a problem situation
5 Hill, Christopher, and Sophie Vanhoonacker. International relations and the European Union. Oxford University
Press, 2017. Pg 110
6 McCormick, John. Understanding the European Union: a concise introduction. Palgrave, 2017.pg 120
7 Greenwood, Justin. Interest representation in the European Union. Palgrave, 2017.

3EUROPEAN UNION LAW
between the two bodies, the weight shall be given to the wordings of the directive and then the
duty of the judge shall be to interpret the wordings and meanings of the national law in the light
of the directive. In the present case, Ruritania has made a few modifications while applying the
directive in principle. The modifications have been made by Ruritania keeping in mind the
national requirements of their economy. The modification made to the directives should be
logical and should be done keeping in mind the rights of the citizens. In understanding the
responsibility of the state in implementing the EU law, it is essential to factor in state liability
that says that the state has a direct responsibility in implementing the law and in cases on non
compliance; the state shall be liable under the state liability8. There are various directives
mandating that the EU laws should be in consonance with labour law provisions and should not
in any way diminish or do away with the rights of the citizens9. For an individual to succeed in a
case of non enforcement of the EU law, the individual whose rights have been jeopardized has to
prove that he has faced irreparable damage and has suffered loss. The individual has to prove
that the state has failed in ensuring the rights of the citizen. In cases of any conflict between the
European Law and the national law the European Law prevails and the national law follows the
directives of the European Union law. This principle is called the ‘supremacy of law’, that is, the
national laws cannot function independently and without paying any regard to the customs and
policies envisaged by the European Union law. The states are duty bound to follow the rules and
regulations as set by the government
Applying the rules of directives, it is essential for the member state to show that the
modifications it has applied to the directive should be in the interest of the citizens and should
not in any way interfere with their rights. The European Directive was effectuated keeping in
8 Barnard, Catherine, and Steve Peers, eds. European union law. Oxford University Press, 2017. Pg 60
9 Hanf, Kenneth, and Ben Soetendorp, eds. Adapting to European integration: small states and the European Union.
Routledge, 2014. Pg 120

4EUROPEAN UNION LAW
mind the rights of the citizens under EU law and ensuring human rights. The labour law
principles mandatory keep in mind that every citizen has a legal right to take unpaid leaves. This
was kept in mind keeping the labour law directives as precedence. The directive states that each
citizen of the EU shall be given four weeks of unpaid leave every year. This directive was
enabled keeping in mind the rights of the citizens under the EU law. The directives are not like
regulations which are binding in nature.
The role of the CJEU is to ensure that the EU laws are observed throughout the state and
there is no breach and there is legality in the modifications made by the national laws in
implementing the laws. The CJEU, as a body corporate, confirms that every state has abided by
the directives and also interprets the EU law keeping in mind the national laws. Direct effect is a
recent doctrine that came into existence after the Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse
Administratie der Belastingen (Case 26/62); [1963] ECR 110 wherein unimplemented doctrines
or doctrines which are badly implemented can be brought to book by the individuals. Initially, it
was held that directives are not binding but in the above mentioned case, the application and
binding of directives have undergone change. The case laid down certain situations when the
directives have to be implemented by the states and in cases of inapplicability, the citizen will
have a valid case against the state11. The direct effect doctrine is again divided into vertical and
horizontal direct effect. The vertical effect is concerned with the relationship of EU and national
laws and their consensus and how a state is obligated to ensure that the national laws adopt the
EU laws and that the state laws are compatible with EU laws. In the case of Foster v British Gas
plc C-188/89,[1991] 2 AC 30612, the court held that an entity will fall under the definition of
public body and will be subject to the laws that apply to vertical effect. The court defined the
10 Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (Case 26/62); [1963] ECR 1
11 Beetham, David, and Christopher Lord. Legitimacy and the European union. Routledge, 2014. Pg 89-95
12 Foster v British Gas plc C-188/89,[1991] 2 AC 306

5EUROPEAN UNION LAW
ambit of “public body” stating that a body which has been providing a public service and which
is under the control of the state shall be deemed to be a public body and hence the rules of
vertical direct effect will apply to him13. This term is now defined as emanation of the state. As
has been held in the case of Van Duyn v Home Office (C-41/74) [1975] Ch. 358)14, it was held
that directives are vertically directly effective. In the case of Von Colson & Kamann v Land
Nordrhein-Westfalen Case 14/83[1984] ECR 189151, it was held that the principle of reading in
will be applied that is, there shall be a reading in of a directive.
In the present case, the national laws can be proved to be inconsistent with the directive
because the aim of the directive is to ensure that people get unpaid leave. John works for
WorkTotal and Emma works for University of Dreams, which are government funded and
therefore the vertical direct effect doctrine will apply. The State of Ruritania has implemented
the directive with a few changes but John and Emma can claim that the directives are against the
EU laws and therefore there unpaid leaves cannot be rejected. The application of the directive
takes place after a year of its inception and therefore it can be said that John and Emma are
within their rights to claim the unpaid leaves and therefore the conditions laid down by the
government in modifying the directive is against the EU law and therefore they can claim that
the government has badly modified the directive and therefore cannot be implemented. The crux
of the implementation of the directives is that the national legislation has to be modified in
accordance with the needs of the European Union laws. The national legislation modification has
to be done to ensure that the principles that were enforced by the EU laws are preserved and the
rights of the citizens are not encroached upon. The member states have autonomy in
implementing these directives and have the leeway for modify in cases where the national laws
13 Burrows, Fred. Free movement in European Community law. Oxford University Press, USA, 1987.
14 Van Duyn v Home Office (C-41/74) [1975] Ch. 358)
15 Von Colson & Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen Case 14/83[1984] ECR 1891

6EUROPEAN UNION LAW
are not competent16. Both the parties can claim that the national law is contradictory to the
principles of the EU directive and hence they have a legitimate claim of unpaid leave.
16 Peers, Steve. "Towards equality: Actual and potential rights of third-country nationals in the European
Union." Common Market L. Rev. 33 (1996): 7.

7EUROPEAN UNION LAW
References
Barnard, Catherine, and Steve Peers, eds. European union law. Oxford University Press, 2017.
Beetham, David, and Christopher Lord. Legitimacy and the European union. Routledge, 2014.
Burrows, Fred. Free movement in European Community law. Oxford University Press, USA,
1987.
Cini, Michelle. European union politics. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Foster v British Gas plc C-188/89,[1991] 2 AC 306
Goldthau, Andreas, and Nick Sitter. A liberal actor in a realist world: The European Union
regulatory state and the global political economy of energy. OUP Oxford, 2015.
Greenwood, Justin. Interest representation in the European Union. Palgrave, 2017.
Hanf, Kenneth, and Ben Soetendorp, eds. Adapting to European integration: small states and the
European Union. Routledge, 2014.
Hill, Christopher, and Sophie Vanhoonacker. International relations and the European Union.
Oxford University Press, 2017.
Hodson, Dermot. Institutions of the European Union. Oxford University Press, 2017.
Jeffery, Charlie. The regional dimension of the European Union: towards a third level in
Europe?. Routledge, 2015
McCormick, John. Understanding the European Union: a concise introduction. Palgrave, 2017
Nugent, Neill. The government and politics of the European Union. Palgrave, 2017

8EUROPEAN UNION LAW
Peers, Steve. "Towards equality: Actual and potential rights of third-country nationals in the
European Union." Common Market L. Rev. 33 (1996): 7.
Pollack, Mark A. Policy-making in the European Union. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015
Pollack, Mark A. Policy-making in the European Union. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015.
Van Duyn v Home Office (C-41/74) [1975] Ch. 358)
Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (Case 26/62); [1963] ECR 1
Von Colson & Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen Case 14/83[1984] ECR 1891