1

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

2

The request has been made in proceedings between the Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins and Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA (‘Via Directa’), concerning the suspension of Christmas bonuses or any other benefit relating to the 13th and/or 14th month pay in respect of 2012.

3

In Portugal, Law No 64-B/2011 of 31 December 2011 approving the State Budget for 2012 (Diário da República, Series I, No 250, of 30 November 2012; ‘the 2012 Budget Law’), provides, in Article 20, that the salary reductions for public sector employees under Law No 55-A/2010 of 31 December 2010 approving the State Budget for 2011 (Diário da República, Series I, No 253, of 31 December 2010; ‘the 2011 Budget Law’), will remain in force during 2012.

4

Article 21(1) of the 2012 Budget Law, entitled ‘Suspension of payment of holiday and Christmas bonuses or similar benefits’, provides:

‘For the duration of the Economic and Financial Assistance Programme (EFAP), as an exceptional measure of budgetary stability, the payment of holiday and Christmas bonuses … or any benefits relating to the 13th and/or 14th month pay to those persons referred to in Article 19(9) of [the 2011 Budget Law], as amended by Law No 48/2011 of 26 August 2011 and Law No 60-A/2011 of 30 November 2011, whose monthly remuneration is greater than EUR 1 100.00, shall be suspended.’

5

Via Directa, a Portuguese insurance company, is a limited company with exclusively public capital. It is a signatory to a collective agreement applicable to the parties in the main proceedings.

6

In January 2012, Via Directa decided to apply Article 21(1) of the 2012 Budget Law to its employees, by therefore suspending the payment of the bonuses provided for in that collective agreement.

7

The 2012 Budget Law supplemented the provisions of the 2011 Budget Law, which also sought to reduce public expenditure.

8

Having before it two other disputes relating to Article 19 of the 2011 Budget Law and Article 21 of the 2012 Budget Law respectively and having grave doubts as to the conformity of those articles with EU law, the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto (Labour Court, Porto) had made two requests for a preliminary ruling, received at the Court on 8 March and 29 May 2012, which gave rise to the orders in Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte and Others (C‑128/12, EU:C:2013:149) and Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins (C‑264/12, EU:C:2014:2036) respectively.

9

Without waiting for the Court to rule in Case C‑264/12, the referring court made the present reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling, which raises questions analogous to those referred in Cases C‑128/12 and C‑264/12.

10

Considering that a decision of the Court on the interpretation of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter is necessary to enable it to rule on the dispute before it, the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa (Labour Court, Lisbon) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

11

Under Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure, where it is clear that it has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of an action, the Court may, by reasoned order, after hearing the Advocate General and without taking further steps in the proceedings, give a decision on the action.

12

In a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, the Court may only interpret EU law within the limits of the jurisdiction attributed to the European Union (orders in Corpul Naţional al Poliţiştilor, C‑434/11, EU:C:2011:830, paragraph 13; Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte and Others, EU:C:2013:149, paragraph 9; and Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins, EU:C:2014:2036, paragraph 18).

13

In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in its order in Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins (EU:C:2014:2036), the Court noted its clear lack of jurisdiction to take cognisance of the questions referred by the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto which were analogous to those put to the Court in the present case. Similarly to the present request for a preliminary ruling, the order for reference in the case which gave rise to that order did not contain any concrete element enabling the view to be taken that the 2012 Budget Law sought to implement EU law.

14

In that context, it must also be borne in mind that in the case which gave rise to the order in Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte and Others (EU:C:2013:149), the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto referred questions for a preliminary ruling concerning the 2011 Budget Law, analogous to those referred in the case which gave rise to the order in Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins (EU:C:2014:2036) concerning the 2012 Budget Law. In the first of those orders, the Court had already held that it clearly had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the questions so referred, having regard to the fact that the order for reference did not contain any concrete element enabling the view to be taken that that law sought to implement EU law.

15

It follows from the foregoing that, as in the two cases which gave rise to those orders, the Court has no jurisdiction to respond to the present request for a preliminary ruling, the progress of which has, furthermore, been stayed until the Court had ruled in the case which gave rise to the order in Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins (EU:C:2014:2036).

16

In those circumstances, it must be held, on the basis of Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, that the Court clearly has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the present request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa.

17

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby rules:

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the present request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa (Portugal), by order of 28 October 2013 (Case C‑665/13).