EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013CB0050
Case C-50/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Italy) — Rocco Papalia v Comune di Aosta (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work — Public sector — Successive contracts — Misuse — Compensation for damage — Conditions for the payment of compensation in the event of the unlawful fixing of a date on which a contract of employment will expire — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
Case C-50/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Italy) — Rocco Papalia v Comune di Aosta (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work — Public sector — Successive contracts — Misuse — Compensation for damage — Conditions for the payment of compensation in the event of the unlawful fixing of a date on which a contract of employment will expire — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
Case C-50/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Italy) — Rocco Papalia v Comune di Aosta (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work — Public sector — Successive contracts — Misuse — Compensation for damage — Conditions for the payment of compensation in the event of the unlawful fixing of a date on which a contract of employment will expire — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
OJ C 52, 22.2.2014, p. 23–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.2.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 52/23 |
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Italy) — Rocco Papalia v Comune di Aosta
(Case C-50/13) (1)
(Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work - Public sector - Successive contracts - Misuse - Compensation for damage - Conditions for the payment of compensation in the event of the unlawful fixing of a date on which a contract of employment will expire - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
2014/C 52/39
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Tribunale ordinario di Aosta
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Rocco Papalia
Defendant: Comune di Aosta
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Aosta — Interpretation of Clause 5 of the annex 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) — Public administration — Compensation in the event of the unlawful fixing of a date on which a contract of employment will expire — Conditions — Evidence of damage incurred — Need to prove that better work opportunities were foregone
Operative part of the order
The framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the annex 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 precluding measures provided for by national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the event of misuse by a public employer of successive fixed-term employment contracts, provides solely for the right for the worker concerned to obtain compensation for the damage which he considers himself to have therefore incurred, without any transformation of the fixed-term employment relationship into an employment relationship for an indefinite period, where the right to that compensation is subject to the obligation on that worker to prove that he was forced to forego better work opportunities, although the effect of that obligation is to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise by that worker of rights conferred by European Union law.
It is for the referring court to assess to what extent the provisions of domestic law aimed at penalising the misuse by the public administration of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships comply with those principles.