Court rules against 'selling holidays' practice[fr][de] 

In the case, the Dutch Trade Union Federation (Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging; FNV) had started proceedings against a practice in the Netherlands allowing workers to be reimbursed for vacation time carried over into the following year, even if this time was part of the legal minimum holiday entitlement of four weeks per year. The practice was also explicitly recommended in a brochure of the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. 

Article 7 of the EU Working Time Directive  says that "Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that every worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks in accordance with the conditions for entitlement to, and granting of, such leave laid down by national legislation and/or practice". It also clarifies that "[the] minimum period of paid annual leave may not be replaced by an allowance in lieu [...]. 

In its 6 April 2006 judgment , the Court followed the FNV's argument that such compensation would encourage employees not to take the legally required leave. According to the ruling, it does also not matter whether the payment is based on a contractual arrangement or not. On, the Court had already ruled against the British practice of 'rolled-up holiday pay' (payment for annual holidays included in hourly or daily pay rates), saying that it was contrary to the working time directive.