CJEU Case C-96/17 / Judgment

Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa
Policy area
Employment and social policy
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Sixth Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
25/07/2018
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2018:603

Listina Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah

Title III: Equality

Article 20 - Equality before the law

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU Case C-96/17 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Consequences of a disciplinary dismissal found to be ‘unfair’ — Definition of ‘working conditions’ — Temporary worker with a contract of indefinite duration — Difference in treatment between permanent workers and temporary workers with a fixed-term contract or contract of indefinite duration — Reinstatement of the worker or granting of compensation.

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby rules:

    Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, according to which, when the disciplinary dismissal of a permanent worker in the service of a public authority is declared wrongful, the worker in question must be reinstated, whereas, in the same situation, a worker employed under a temporary contract or a temporary contract of indefinite duration performing the same duties as that permanent worker need not be reinstated but instead may receive compensation.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    1) This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 (‘the Framework Agreement’), which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43), and the interpretation of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

    ...

    18) In those circumstances, the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Social Court No 2, Terrassa) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘In the context of a challenge to a disciplinary dismissal of a worker considered to be employed under a contract that is of indefinite duration but not permanent in the service of the public authorities,

    1. Is the remedy provided by the legal system when a disciplinary dismissal is held to be unlawful and, in particular, the remedy under Article 96(2) of the [basic regulations relating to public servants], to be regarded as covered by the concept of “employment conditions” under Clause 4(1) of [the Framework Agreement]?
    2. Would a situation, such as that provided for in Article 96(2) of the [basic regulations relating to public servants], in which the disciplinary dismissal of a permanent worker, when that dismissal is held to be wrongful, that is to say unlawful, always requires the reinstatement of the worker, but, when the worker is subject to an indefinite or temporary contract performing the same duties as a permanent worker, permits that worker not to be reinstated in return for compensation, be discriminatory under Clause 4(1) of [the Framework Agreement]?
    3. Would unequal treatment be justified in the same situation as in the question above, not in the light of the Directive but of Article 20 of the Charter …?’

    ...

    20) It must be noted, as a preliminary remark, that, inasmuch as the principle of equality before the law established in Article 20 of the Charter has, as regards fixed-term workers, been implemented at EU level by Directive 1999/70, and in particular by Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement which is annexed to that directive, the situation at issue in the main proceedings must be examined in the light of that directive and the Framework Agreement.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)