This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013CA0190
Case C-190/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Antonio Márquez Samohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Universities — Associate lecturers — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Clause 5(1) — Measures to prevent the abusive use of fixed-term contracts — Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying such contracts — Clause 3 — Concept of ‘employment contract of indefinite duration’ — Penalties — Right to compensation — Difference in treatment between permanent workers)
Case C-190/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Antonio Márquez Samohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Universities — Associate lecturers — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Clause 5(1) — Measures to prevent the abusive use of fixed-term contracts — Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying such contracts — Clause 3 — Concept of ‘employment contract of indefinite duration’ — Penalties — Right to compensation — Difference in treatment between permanent workers)
Case C-190/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Antonio Márquez Samohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Universities — Associate lecturers — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Clause 5(1) — Measures to prevent the abusive use of fixed-term contracts — Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying such contracts — Clause 3 — Concept of ‘employment contract of indefinite duration’ — Penalties — Right to compensation — Difference in treatment between permanent workers)
OJ C 135, 5.5.2014, p. 17–17
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
5.5.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 135/17 |
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Spain) — Antonio Márquez Samohano v Universitat Pompeu Fabra
(Case C-190/13) (1)
((Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Universities - Associate lecturers - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Clause 5(1) - Measures to prevent the abusive use of fixed-term contracts - Concept of ‘objective reasons’ justifying such contracts - Clause 3 - Concept of ‘employment contract of indefinite duration’ - Penalties - Right to compensation - Difference in treatment between permanent workers))
2014/C 135/18
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Antonio Márquez Samohano
Defendant: Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona — Interpretation of clauses 3 and 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) — Employment contracts concluded with the public administration — University professors — Absence of measures to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term employment contracts.
Operative part of the judgment
Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed 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 rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allow universities to renew successive fixed-term employment contracts concluded with associate lecturers, with no limitation as to the maximum duration and the number of renewals of those contracts, where such contracts are justified by an objective reason within the meaning of clause 5(1)(a), which is a matter for the referring court to verify. However, it is also for that court to ascertain that, in the main proceedings, the renewal of the successive fixed-term employment contracts at issue was actually intended to cover temporary needs and that rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings were not, in fact, used to meet fixed and permanent needs in terms of employment of teaching staff.