The claimant worked for the social security agency  and had been off work for for 14 months following an accident on her way to work. Under the relevant collective agreement "No annual leave entitlement is given in a particular year in respect of absences as a result of the following: illness or prolonged illness that has resulted in a break in work of twelve consecutive months or more" but the Code de Travail states that where the "contract of employment is suspended owing to a work-related accident or occupational disease, shall be treated as periods of actual work ...'. Her claims were dismissed in the lower courts but in the Cour de Cassation she argued that an accident on the way to work should be treated the same as a workplace accident and that she was due annual leave. In the course of the appeal the Cour de Cassation found that it was unsure whether the relevant French provisions were compatible with Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and so referred the matter seeking answers to three questions

"1 Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88… be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices which make entitlement to paid annual leave conditional on a minimum of ten days' (or one month's) actual work during the reference period?

1. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does Article 7 of Directive 2003/88…, which imposes a specific obligation on an employer in so far as it creates entitlement to paid leave for a worker who is absent on health grounds for a period of one year or more, require a national court hearing proceedings between individuals to disregard a conflicting national provision which makes entitlement to paid annual leave in such a case conditional on at least ten days' actual work during the reference year?

1. Since Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC does not distinguish between workers according to whether their absence from work during the reference period is due to a work-related accident, an occupational disease, an accident on the journey to or from work or a non-occupational disease, are workers entitled, under that directive, to paid leave of the same length whatever the reason for their absence on health grounds, or must that directive be interpreted as not precluding the length of paid leave differing according to the reason for the worker's absence, if national law provides that in certain circumstances the length of paid annual leave may exceed the minimum of four weeks provided for by [Directive 2003/88]?'

The Grand Chamber ruled, in summary, as follows:

1. Article 7(1) must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices which make entitlement to paid annual leave conditional on a minimum period of work

1. The national court should determine whether it can find an interpretation that allows the absence of the worker due to an accident on the journey to or from work to be treated as being equivalent to one of the situations covered by the Code du travail. In doing so they must take the whole body of domestic law into consideration and apply the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law to ensure that Article 7 is fully effective and the outcome is consistent with its objective.

If such an interpretation is not possible, the national court should determine determine whether the direct effect of Article 7(1) may be relied upon given the legal nature of the respondents in the main proceedings. Where the national court cannot achieve the Article 7 objective, the claimant can rely on the judgment of Francovich and Others to obtain appropriate compensation

1. Article 7 must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which, depending on the reason for the worker's absence on sick leave, provides for a period of paid annual leave equal to or exceeding the minimum period of four weeks.

The full judgment can be read here