Introduction
This essay addresses the legal position of Zvezda and Carol, two librarians in Slovenia, concerning their entitlement to shared parental leave under EU law. Using the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) framework, it examines two distinct scenarios: first, their claim under the (EU) Shared Parental Leave Regulation 2022 against their public employer, and second, the implications if the EU law were a directive instead, with a private employer. The analysis focuses on the supremacy of EU law, direct effect, and state liability principles, drawing on foundational EU legal doctrines to provide sound advice. This discussion aims to clarify how Zvezda and Carol may enforce their rights and the limitations they might encounter, thereby reflecting on the practical application of EU law in national contexts.
Part A: Claim under the (EU) Shared Parental Leave Regulation 2022
Issue
The primary issue is whether Zvezda and Carol can rely on the (EU) Shared Parental Leave Regulation 2022 to claim 48 weeks of shared parental leave against their employer, the National Library of Slovenia, despite not being married, as required by Slovenian law 50/2015.
Rule
EU regulations are directly applicable in all Member States upon entry into force, binding in their entirety without requiring national implementation (Article 288 TFEU). Moreover, under the principle of direct effect established in *Van Gend en Loos* (1963), EU law provisions confer rights on individuals that national courts must protect if the provisions are clear, precise, and unconditional. Additionally, the supremacy of EU law, as confirmed in *Costa v ENEL* (1964), ensures that EU provisions prevail over conflicting national laws.
Application
The (EU) Shared Parental Leave Regulation 2022, effective from June 2022, entitles working couples in a “durable relationship” to 48 weeks of shared parental leave. This criterion is met by Zvezda and Carol, who have been in a relationship since 2018. As a regulation, this EU law is directly applicable in Slovenia and takes precedence over the conflicting national law 50/2015, which restricts the entitlement to married couples. Furthermore, assuming the Regulation’s provisions are clear and precise, they likely have direct effect, allowing Zvezda and Carol to invoke their rights directly against their employer, a public body. Typically, in such cases, individuals can seek enforcement through national courts, which are obliged to apply EU law over national legislation. Therefore, the National Library of Slovenia’s refusal, based on national law, arguably violates EU law principles.
Conclusion
Zvezda and Carol can rely on the Regulation to claim their entitlement. They should challenge the refusal through the Slovenian courts, citing the direct applicability and supremacy of EU law. The court should uphold their claim, disregarding the marriage requirement in law 50/2015.
Part B: Claim under the (EU) Shared Parental Leave Directive 2022 against a Private Employer
Issue
The issue now is whether Zvezda and Carol can rely on the (EU) Shared Parental Leave Directive 2022, unimplemented by Slovenia, against a private employer.
Rule
Unlike regulations, directives require implementation into national law by Member States (Article 288 TFEU). Directives can have direct effect only vertically, against the state or public bodies, not horizontally against private entities, as established in *Marshall v Southampton* (1986). If a directive is not implemented by the deadline, individuals may rely on it against the state if its provisions are clear and unconditional (*Van Duyn v Home Office*, 1974). Additionally, under the principle of state liability (*Francovich v Italy*, 1991), individuals can claim damages from the state for failure to implement a directive causing them loss.
Application
The (EU) Shared Parental Leave Directive 2022, with an implementation deadline of 1 October 2024, was not transposed into Slovenian law by the time of Zvezda and Carol’s application in 2025. As their employer is now a private library, they cannot invoke direct effect horizontally against a private entity. However, they may pursue a claim against the Slovenian state for failing to implement the Directive, provided its provisions are sufficiently precise. Indeed, if they suffer loss (e.g., denied leave), they could seek compensation under state liability principles. Nevertheless, this remedy does not directly compel their private employer to grant leave, highlighting a significant limitation compared to the Regulation scenario. Therefore, their immediate remedy is constrained, requiring indirect action against the state.
Conclusion
Unlike in Part A, Zvezda and Carol cannot directly enforce the Directive against their private employer. They must instead pursue a claim against the Slovenian state for non-implementation, seeking damages, though this does not guarantee immediate leave entitlement.
Conclusion
In summary, under the Regulation in Part A, Zvezda and Carol can directly rely on EU law to enforce their rights against a public employer through national courts, leveraging the supremacy and direct effect of EU regulations. However, in Part B, the Directive’s lack of horizontal direct effect means they cannot claim directly against a private employer, necessitating a state liability action. These scenarios underscore the nuanced application of EU law, particularly the varying enforceability of regulations versus directives, and highlight the importance of national implementation for protecting individual rights. The implications suggest a need for consistent EU compliance to ensure equitable access to such entitlements across Member States.
References
- Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963] ECR 1.
- Case 6/64, Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585.
- Case 41/74, Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337.
- Case 152/84, Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority [1986] ECR 723.
- Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy [1991] ECR I-5357.
- Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Article 288.
