Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015CN0197

Case C-197/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Juan Carlos Castrejana López v Ayuntamiento de Vitoria

OJ C 236, 20.7.2015, p. 26–27 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

20.7.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/26


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Juan Carlos Castrejana López v Ayuntamiento de Vitoria

(Case C-197/15)

(2015/C 236/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Juan Carlos Castrejana López

Respondent: Ayuntamiento de Vitoria

Questions referred

1.

Must clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement (1) on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in a situation of abuse arising from the use of fixed-term employment contracts, does not acknowledge that funcionarios interinos (temporary civil servants regulated under administrative law), as opposed to staff who are in precisely the same position but who are employed by a public authority under contract, have a general right to remain in post on an indefinite but not permanent basis, in other words, to hold the temporary post until it is filled in the manner prescribed by law or eliminated in accordance with legally established procedures?

2.

If the previous question is answered in the negative, must the principle of equivalence be interpreted as meaning that the national court may regard the situation of staff who are employed by a public authority under a fixed-term contract and that of temporary civil servants as similar in cases where there has been misuse of fixed-term employment contracts, or, when assessing similarity, must the national court consider factors other than the fact that the employer is the same, the services provided are the same or similar and the contract of employment has a fixed term, such as the precise nature of the employee’s relationship, whether contractual or administrative, or the power of the public authorities to organise the way they function, which justify treating the two situations differently?

3.

If the previous questions are answered in the negative, must the principle of effectiveness be interpreted in such a way that the issue of the appropriate penalty is to be heard and determined within the same proceedings as those in which the misuse of fixed-term employment contracts is established, through interlocutory proceedings in which the parties may request, claim and prove what they deem to be appropriate in that regard, or, on the contrary, is it permissible for the injured party to be referred, for that purpose, to new administrative or, as the case may be, judicial proceedings?


(1)  Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


Top