Facts of the case
The employee, who worked as a nursery teacher, had already applied in October 2025 for a week’s holiday in July 2026. During this period, she intended to take part in a gliding camp organised by her club, during which licence examinations were also due to take place. The employer refused the leave on the grounds that a colleague had already applied for several weeks’ leave for the same period. Following several unsuccessful out-of-court requests, the employee did not initiate proceedings for an interim injunction until May 2026. Both the Employment Tribunal and the Regional Labour Court of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania dismissed the application.
High standards for the grounds for an injunction
The Regional Labour Court (LAG) placed particular emphasis on the fact that a temporary injunction ordering the granting of leave effectively prejudges the main proceedings. If the leave is granted and taken, the consequences resulting from this cannot be reversed. For this reason, particularly strict requirements must be imposed on the grounds for the injunction.
In the court’s view, the employee should have set out and demonstrated credibly why she was urgently in need of the holiday at precisely the time requested, and what harm, going beyond the usual disadvantages of a holiday refusal, would otherwise have been incurred. This was lacking. In particular, it was not demonstrated that the gliding camp could only take place on that date, that there was no alternative option, or that she was at risk of losing her licence.
Furthermore, the Regional Labour Court (LAG) ruled out the necessary urgency because, following the renewed refusal of her leave, the employee had waited several months and had not initiated proceedings on the merits of the case. In the court’s view, the time-sensitive urgency had thus been brought about by the employee herself.
Does the employee have to explain why they need the leave?
As regards the entitlement to leave as such, the decision does not impose a general obligation to disclose personal reasons for taking leave. In proceedings for interim relief, however, a more detailed explanation is required: according to the LAG’s decision, anyone seeking to enforce the granting of leave for a specific period at short notice through the courts must explain and demonstrate credibly why this particular period is of special importance and what significant disadvantages would arise if it were refused. This explanation serves to substantiate the grounds for the injunction and not to justify the entitlement to leave as such.
Implications for practice
The ruling highlights the procedural risk of taking action too late. In practice, this means above all that a rejected and time-sensitive request for leave should be pursued in court at an early stage. Taking leave without authorisation, however, is not an option. This regularly justifies dismissal.
Conclusion
Following the ruling by the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Regional Labour Court, the provisional granting of a specific holiday request remains limited to exceptional cases. Employees must provide substantiated evidence of particular urgency and must not themselves create time pressure by delaying their request. Employers, for their part, should document in a clear and comprehensible manner which operational requirements or competing holiday requests prevent the request from being granted.
Key points in brief
- An interim injunction ordering the granting of annual leave requires a specific exceptional circumstance and a high degree of urgency.
- In summary proceedings, the employee must specifically set out why the requested period is necessary and what significant disadvantages would otherwise arise.
- The judgement does not concern holiday pay; the substantive entitlement to this does not, in principle, depend on a specific purpose.
