This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CA0596
Case C-596/14: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Ana de Diego Porras v Ministerio de Defensa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Concept of ‘employment conditions’ — Compensation for termination of a contract of employment — Compensation not provided for by the national legislation for temporary employment contracts — Difference of treatment as compared with permanent workers)
Case C-596/14: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Ana de Diego Porras v Ministerio de Defensa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Concept of ‘employment conditions’ — Compensation for termination of a contract of employment — Compensation not provided for by the national legislation for temporary employment contracts — Difference of treatment as compared with permanent workers)
Case C-596/14: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Ana de Diego Porras v Ministerio de Defensa (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Concept of ‘employment conditions’ — Compensation for termination of a contract of employment — Compensation not provided for by the national legislation for temporary employment contracts — Difference of treatment as compared with permanent workers)
IO C 419, 14.11.2016, p. 9–10
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
14.11.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 419/9 |
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid — Spain) — Ana de Diego Porras v Ministerio de Defensa
(Case C-596/14) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Concept of ‘employment conditions’ - Compensation for termination of a contract of employment - Compensation not provided for by the national legislation for temporary employment contracts - Difference of treatment as compared with permanent workers))
(2016/C 419/11)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Ana de Diego Porras
Defendant: Ministerio de Defensa
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Clause 4(1) 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 meaning that the concept of ‘employment conditions’ covers the compensation that the employer must pay to an employee on account of the termination of his fixed-term employment contract. |
|
2. |
Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Directive 1999/70 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which fails to provide any compensation for termination of a contract of employment to a worker employed under a temporary replacement contract while allowing such compensation to be granted, inter alia, to comparable workers employed under a contract of indefinite duration. The mere fact that the worker has carried out his work on the basis of a temporary replacement contract cannot constitute an objective ground justifying the failure to grant such compensation to that worker. |