This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013CN0050
Case C-50/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy) lodged on 30 January 2013 — Rocco Papalia v Comune di Aosta
Case C-50/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy) lodged on 30 January 2013 — Rocco Papalia v Comune di Aosta
Case C-50/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy) lodged on 30 January 2013 — Rocco Papalia v Comune di Aosta
OJ C 147, 25.5.2013, 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)
|
25.5.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 147/3 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy) lodged on 30 January 2013 — Rocco Papalia v Comune di Aosta
(Case C-50/13)
2013/C 147/06
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Tribunale ordinario di Aosta
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Rocco Papalia
Defendant: Comune di Aosta
Question referred
Must Directive 1999/70/EC (1) (Article 1, along with Clause 5 of the annexed framework agreement, as well as any other provision in any way connected or linked) be interpreted as permitting a situation in which a worker who has been recruited by a public body on a fixed-term contract, without the requirements laid down by the above Community rules being satisfied, is entitled to compensation in respect of damage only if he proves that such damage actually exists, and thus only if he provides positive, including presumptive, evidence, but at any rate specific evidence, that he has had to forgo other, better, employment opportunities?