Case C‑614/15

Rodica Popescu

v

Direcția Sanitar Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Gorj

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Veterinary assistant in the veterinary health inspection sector — Public sector — Clause 5(1) — Measures aimed at preventing the misuse of fixed-term contracts — Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying the use of such contracts — Replacements for vacant posts pending completion of competition procedures’

Summary — Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 21 September 2016

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court's existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure

   (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99)

2. Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Scope — Veterinary assistant in the veterinary health inspection sector, employed in the public sector under fixed-term employment contracts — Included

   (Council Directive 1999/70, Annexe, Clauses 2(1) and 3(1)

3. Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term contracts — Objective reasons liable to justify the renewal of such contracts — Application to successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector –National rules deeming the renewal of those contracts justified on the sole ground that inspections performed by staff employed in the veterinary health sector are non-permanent in nature due to the variations in volume of the activities of the establishments to be inspected — Not permissible — Justifications — Verification by the national court

   (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clause 5(1))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 31, 32)

2.  It is apparent from the very wording of clause 2(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, that the scope of the Framework Agreement is conceived in broad terms, covering generally ‘fixed-term workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined in law, collective agreements or practices in each Member State’. In addition, the definition of fixed-term workers for the purposes of the Framework Agreement, set out in clause 3(1), encompasses all workers without drawing a distinction according to whether their employer is in the public or private sector. Since the Framework Agreement does not exclude any particular sector from its scope, it is therefore applicable to staff recruited in the veterinary health inspection sector.

   It follows that a worker employed in the public sector as veterinary assistant in the veterinary health inspection sector, whose employment contract is, under national law, necessarily concluded by their employer for a fixed duration, comes within the scope of the Framework Agreement.

   (see paras 33-35)

3.  Clause 5(1) of the of the Framework agreement on fixed-term work, which is set out in the Annex to Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national rules under which the renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts, in the public sector, is deemed justified by ‘objective reasons’ within the meaning of that clause on the sole ground that inspections performed by staff employed in the veterinary health sector are non-permanent in nature due to the variations in volume of the activities of the establishments to be inspected, unless the renewal of those contracts is actually aimed at covering a specific need in the relevant sector, without the underlying reason being budgetary considerations, which it is for the national court to verify. Moreover, the fact that the renewal of successive fixed-term contracts is done pending completion of competition procedures does not make those rules compliant with that clause where the actual application thereof leads, in reality, to abusive recourse to successive fixed-term employment contracts, which it is also for the national court to verify.

   (see para. 69, operative part)