Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017CN0096

    Case C-96/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 22 February 2017 — Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

    IO C 151, 15.5.2017, p. 20–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    15.5.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 151/20


    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 22 February 2017 — Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi v Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

    (Case C-96/17)

    (2017/C 151/26)

    Language of the case: Spanish

    Referring court

    Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Gardenia Vernaza Ayovi

    Defendant: Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa

    Questions referred

    1.

    Is the remedy provided by the legal system when a disciplinary dismissal is held to be unlawful and, in particular, the remedy under Article 96(2) of the Real Decreto Legislativo 5/2015 (Royal Legislative Decree 5/2015) of 30 October approving the consolidated text of the Ley del Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público (Law on the basic regulations relating to public servants), to be regarded as covered by the concept of ‘employment conditions’ under Clause 4(1) of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work (1) concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP?

    2.

    Would a situation, such as that provided for in Article 96(2) of the Real Decreto Legislativo 5/2015 (Royal Legislative Decree 5/2015) of 30 October approving the consolidated text of the Ley del Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público (Law on the basic regulations relating to public servants), in which the disciplinary dismissal of a permanent worker, when that dismissal is held to be wrongful, that is to say unlawful, always requires the reinstatement of the worker, but when the worker is subject to an indefinite or temporary contract performing the same duties as a permanent worker permits that worker not to be reinstated in return for compensation, be discriminatory under Clause 4(1) of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP?

    3.

    Would unequal treatment be justified in the same situation as in the question above, not in the light of the Directive but of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?


    (1)  OJ 1999, L 175, p. 43.


    Top