Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62008CN0164

Case C-164/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnon (Greece) lodged on 17 April 2008 — Mikhail Zakharioudakis v Dimos Labis

SL C 171, 5.7.2008, p. 22–23 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

5.7.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/22

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnon (Greece) lodged on 17 April 2008 — Mikhail Zakharioudakis v Dimos Labis

(Case C-164/08)

(2008/C 171/34)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mikhail Zakharioudakis

Defendant: Dimos Labis

Questions referred

1.

Do clause 5 and clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which forms an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70/EC (OJ 1999 L 175 p. 43), mean that Community law (by reason of the application of the said Framework Agreement) does not allow a Member State to adopt measures

(a)

where an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement already existed under national law before the directive entered into force and

(b)

where the measures adopted in order to apply the Framework Agreement reduce the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law?

2.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, where there is an equivalent legal measure under national law, within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement, which existed before Directive 1999/70/EC entered into force, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920 at issue in the main proceedings, is the adoption of a legal measure by reason of the application of the Framework Agreement, such as Article 11 of Presidential Decree 164/2004 at issue in the main proceedings, an unacceptable reduction in the general level [of protection] afforded to fixed-term workers under national law within the meaning of clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement:

(a)

when the legal measure in question applying the Framework Agreement was adopted after the time-limit for transposing Directive 1999/70/EC had elapsed, but only fixed-term employment contracts and relationships which were in effect before its entry into force or had expired within a certain period before its entry into force but after the time-limit for transposing the Directive had elapsed fall within its chronological scope, although the equivalent legal measure which already existed does not have a chronologically restricted scope of application and covers all fixed-term employment contracts which had been concluded, were in effect or had expired when Directive 199/70/EC came into force and the time-limit for its transposition had elapsed;

(b)

when fixed-term employment contracts or relationships only fall within the scope of application of the legal measure in question applying the Framework Agreement if they can be regarded as successive within the meaning of that measure, satisfying the cumulative requirements: (i) that there is a maximum period of three months between them; (ii) that they extend for a total of at least 24 months before the measure in question enters into force, irrespective of the number of contract renewals or that, on the basis of those renewals, there has been a minimum total period of work of 18 months over an overall period of 24 months from the original contract, provided that there are at least three renewals since the original contract, whereas the existing equivalent legal measure does not lay down such conditions but covers all the fixed-term (successive) employment contracts, irrespective of a minimum total period of work and a minimum number of contract renewals;

(c)

when the legal measure in question applying the Framework Agreement provides as a legal consequence for the protection of fixed-term workers and the prevention of abuse, within the meaning of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, for the qualification thereafter (ex nunc) of fixed-term employment contracts as contracts of indefinite duration, whereas the pre-existing legal measure provides for the qualification of fixed-term contracts as contracts of indefinite duration from the time they were originally concluded (ex tunc)?

3.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, where an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, which forms an integral part of Directive 1999/70/EC, already existed in the national legal order before that directive entered into force, as in the case of Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920 at issue in the main proceedings, is the adoption of a legal measure by reason of the application of the Framework Agreement, such as Article 7 of Presidential Decree 164/2004 at issue in the main proceedings an unacceptable reduction in the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law within the meaning of clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement, when that provides, as the sole means of protection of fixed-term workers from abuse, for an obligation on the part of the employer to pay wages and severance pay where workers have wrongfully been employed under successive fixed-term employment contracts, bearing in mind

(a)

that the obligation to pay wages and severance pay is provided for under national law for all employment relationships and is not intended specifically to prevent abuse within the meaning of the Framework Agreement, and

(b)

that the legal consequence of the application of the earlier equivalent legal measure is that successive fixed-term contracts of employment are recognised as a contract of indefinite duration?

4.

If all the above questions are answered in the affirmative, should the national court, in interpreting national law in accordance with Directive 1999/70/EC, disapply the provisions of the legal measure which are not compatible with it, but which were adopted by reason of the application of the Framework Agreement and result in a reduction in the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law, such as Articles 7 and 11 of Presidential Decree 164/2004 and apply instead an equivalent legal measure which existed before the directive entered into force, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920?

5.

If the national court finds that — in principle — a provision (in this case Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920) that constitutes an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, which is an integral part of Directive 1999/70/EC, is applicable to a dispute over fixed-term work and, on the basis of that provision, the finding that successive contracts of employment were concluded as a fixed-term contract for no objective reason relating to the nature, type or features of the work offered means that the contracts must be recognised as a contract of employment of indefinite duration, then

(a)

is it compatible with Community law for a national court to interpret and apply national law to the effect that the fact that a legal provision governing employment under a fixed-term contract of employment in order to meet seasonal, periodic, temporary, exceptional needs was used as the legal basis for concluding a fixed-term contract constitutes an objective reason in all cases for concluding such contracts, even though the requirements covered were in fact fixed and permanent, and

(b)

is it compatible with Community law for a national court to interpret and apply national law to the effect that a provision prohibiting the conversion of fixed-term contracts of employment in the public sector to contracts of indefinite duration must be construed as an absolute prohibition in any circumstance to convert a fixed-term employment contract or relationship in the public sector to an employment contract or relationship of indefinite duration, even if it was wrongfully concluded as a fixed-term contract, that is to say, when the requirements met were in fact fixed and permanent, and that the national court has no discretion in such cases to make a finding as to the true character of the legal employment relationship at issue and correctly qualify it as a contract of indefinite duration? Alternatively should the prohibition in question be restricted solely to fixed-term contracts of employment which were in fact concluded in order to meet temporary, unforeseeable, urgent, exceptional or similar types of special requirements and not to cases in which they were in fact concluded in order to meet fixed and permanent requirements?
Top