|
1.9.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 292/9 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Maurizio Fiamingo (C-362/13), Leonardo Zappalà (C-363/13), Francesco Rotondo and Others (C-407/13) v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA
(Joined Cases C-362/13, C-363/13 and C-407/13) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Maritime sector - Ferries making crossings between two ports situated in the same Member State - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Clause 3(1) - Concept of ‘fixed-term employment contract’ - Clause 5(1) - Measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of fixed-term contracts - Penalties - Conversion of the employment contract into one of indefinite duration - Conditions))
2014/C 292/11
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Corte suprema di cassazione
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants: Maurizio Fiamingo (C-362/13), Leonardo Zappalà (C-363/13), Francesco Rotondo and Others (C-407/13)
Respondent: Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
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 meaning that it applies to workers, such as the appellants in the main proceedings, who are employed as seafarers under fixed-term employment contracts on board ferries making sea crossings between two ports situated in the same Member State. |
|
2. |
The provisions of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that fixed-term employment contracts have to indicate their duration, but not their termination date. |
|
3. |
Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into employment contracts of indefinite duration only in circumstances where the worker concerned has been employed continuously under such contracts by the same employer for a period longer than one year, the employment relationship being considered to be continuous where the fixed-term employment contracts are separated by time lapses of less than or equal to 60 days. It is, however, for the referring court to satisfy itself that the conditions of application and the effective implementation of that legislation result in a measure that is adequate to prevent and punish the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships. |