Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016CA0494

    Case C-494/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trapani — Italy) — Giuseppa Santoro v Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Fixed-term work — Contracts concluded with a public sector employer — Measures to penalise the misuse of fixed-term contracts — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

    OJ C 161, 7.5.2018, p. 9–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    7.5.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 161/9


    Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 March 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trapani — Italy) — Giuseppa Santoro v Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

    (Case C-494/16) (1)

    ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Fixed-term work - Contracts concluded with a public sector employer - Measures to penalise the misuse of fixed-term contracts - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness))

    (2018/C 161/09)

    Language of the case: Italian

    Referring court

    Tribunale civile di Trapani

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Giuseppa Santoro

    Defendants: Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

    Operative part of the judgment

    Clause 5 of 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 not precluding national legislation which, on the one hand, does not punish the misuse of successive fixed-term contracts by a public sector employer through the payment of compensation to the worker concerned for the lack of conversion of the fixed-term employment relationship into an employment relationship of indefinite duration, but, on the other hand, provides for the grant of compensation of between 2,5 and 12 times the last monthly salary of that worker together with the possibility for him to obtain full compensation for the harm by demonstrating, by way of presumption, the loss of opportunities to find employment or that, if a recruitment competition had been duly organised, he would have been successful, provided that such legislation is accompanied by an effective and dissuasive penalty mechanism, a matter which is for the referring court to verify.


    (1)  OJ C 454, 5.12.2016.


    Top