Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62012CN0178

    Case C-178/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n °1 de Córdoba (Spain) lodged on 17 April 2012 — Rafaela Rivas Montes v Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)

    OJ C 209, 14.7.2012, p. 3–4 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    14.7.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 209/3

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Córdoba (Spain) lodged on 17 April 2012 — Rafaela Rivas Montes v Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)

    (Case C-178/12)

    2012/C 209/04

    Language of the case: Spanish

    Referring court

    Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Córdoba

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Rafaela Rivas Montes

    Defendant: Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)

    Questions referred

    1.

    Is it consistent with the Community principle of equality (in the terms in which it has been defined by the Court of Justice) for a given public authority (here the IMDECO), for the purposes of calculating its employees’ length-of-service salary increments, to take into account solely the character of the legal relationship linking the authority and the employees, either of a public service or of a contractual kind, and consequently in the former case (civil servants), in accordance with the Ley estatal funcionarial vigente, for it to take into account without distinction all service, current and past, performed in any part of the public authorities in general (that is, in that particular public authority — IMDECO — or in any another type of public authority), while in contrast, in the latter case (staff engaged under employment contracts), in accordance with the Ley estatal laboral vigente and the case law interpreting it, it takes into account only the service previously provided to that particular public authority (IMDECO), provided however that there is no temporary break in the chain of contracts covering the services which would suggest that the essential unity of the legal-employment relationship had been broken, insofar as, in such a case, the days worked immediately before such a break are disregarded?

    2.

    If the answer to the first question is in the negative (that is, if the Court of Justice considers that such an action carried out by a public authority — in this case IMDECO — infringes the Community principle of equality), should the restoration of the principle of equality be carried out through the application of the Ley estatal funcionarial to staff engaged under employment contracts?
    Top