|
9.10.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 274/2 |
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy)) — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Tiziana Bruno, Massimo Pettini (C-395/08), Daniela Lotti, Clara Matteucci (C-396/08)
(Joined Cases C-395/08 and C-396/08) (1)
(Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers - Calculation of the period of service required to obtain a retirement pension - Periods not worked disregarded - Discrimination)
2010/C 274/02
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Corte d’appello di Roma
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)
Defendants: Tiziana Bruno, Massimo Pettini (C-395/08), Daniela Lotti, Clara Matteucci (C-396/08)
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) — Interpretation of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9) — Part-time workers working some months of the year and resting in the other months — Exclusion of periods not worked in the calculation of pension rights
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
With regard to retirement pensions, Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, for vertical-cyclical part-time workers, disregards periods not worked in calculating the period of service required to qualify for such a pension, unless such a difference in treatment is justified on objective grounds. |
|
2. |
If the referring court reached the conclusion that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is incompatible with Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement, Clauses 1 and 5(1) of the agreement would have to be interpreted as also precluding such legislation. |