The Claimant worked for 13 years at the Respondent, on the basis of a 'self-employed commission-only contract. When he took annual leave he was not paid. After he retired, he claimed 3 types of holiday pay:

'Holiday Pay 1' which was the holiday accrued but untaken at termination in the final leave year (2012/2013);

'Holiday Pay 2' which was leave actually taken between 1999 and 2012, but in respect of which no payment was made;

'Holiday Pay 3' which was the pay in lieu of accrued but untaken leave throughout the whole period of his employment, that being 24.15 weeks in total.

In its judgment, the ET considered that the Claimant was a 'worker' within the meaning of Directive 2003/88 and that he was entitled to the three types of holiday pay claimed. After going to the EAT and then on to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Claimant was a 'worker' within the meaning of Directive 2003/88 and that he was entitled to 'holiday pay types 1 and 2'. As far as Holiday pay type 3 was concerned the Court of Appeal decided to stay the proceedings and referred the following questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling:

1) If there is a dispute between a worker and employer as to whether the worker is entitled to annual leave with pay pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, is it compatible with EU law, and in particular the principle of effective remedy, if the worker has to take leave first before being able to establish whether he is entitled to be paid?

2) If the worker does not take all or some of the annual leave to which he is entitled in the leave year when any right should be exercised, in circumstances where he would have done so but for the fact that the employer refuses to pay him for any period of leave he takes, can the worker claim that he is prevented from exercising his right to paid leave such that the right carries over until he has the opportunity to exercise it?

3) If the right carries over, does it do so indefinitely or is there a limited period for exercising the carried-over right by analogy with the limitations imposed where the worker is unable to exercise the right to leave in the relevant leave year because of sickness?

4) If there is no statutory or contractual provision specifying a carry-over period, is the court obliged to impose a limit to the carry-over period in order to ensure that the application of the national legislation on working time does not distort the purpose behind Article 7?

5) If the answer to the preceding question is yes, is a period of 18 months following the end of the holiday year in which the leave accrued compatible with the right set out in Article 7 [of Directive 2003/88]?'