30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/22

(Case C-389/22)

(2023/C 35/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: GC and Others

Defendants: Croce Rossa Italiana, Ministero della Difesa, Ministero della Salute, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei ministri

Questions referred

1.In order to consider that there is a derogation from the obligation imposed on the court of final instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, must ‘[the conviction] that the matter is equally obvious to the courts of the other Member States and to the Court of Justice’ [within the meaning of the judgment of 6 October 1982 in Case 238/81, Cilfit and Others] (…) be established subjectively, giving reasons for the possible interpretation that might be given to the question by the courts of the other Member States and by the Court of Justice when seised of an identical question?

2.(…) In order to avoid a probatio diabolica and to allow the specific implementation of the circumstances derogating from the obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling as indicated by the Court of Justice, is it sufficient to establish that the question referred for a preliminary ruling (concerning the interpretation and correct application of the relevant European provision in the specific case) raised in the national proceedings is manifestly unfounded, by ruling out the existence of reasonable doubts in that regard, having regard, on a purely objective basis — without an enquiry into the specific interpretative approach that might be adopted by different courts or tribunals — to the terminology and meaning in [EU] law attributable to the words of the European provision (relevant in the present case), the European legislative context of which it forms part and the safeguarding aims it seeks to fulfil, and having regard to the stage of development of European law at the time when the provision relevant to the national proceedings is to be applied?

3.In order to preserve the constitutional and European values of the independence of the courts and to ensure the reasonable duration of legal proceedings, may Article 267 TFEU be interpreted as precluding the bringing of civil or disciplinary liability proceedings against a national supreme court that has examined and rejected a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of EU law, either automatically or at the discretion of the party bringing the action?

4.Are Articles 1626, 1653, 1668 and 1669 of Legislative Decree No 66 of 15 March 2010, which provide for the existence of service relationships with a public authority with end dates that may be extended several times and may be renewed over decades without interruption, compatible with Directive 1999/70/EC (1) and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations?

5.Are Articles 5 and 6 of Legislative Decree No 178/2012, in so far as they provide for a difference in treatment between staff of the same institution in continuous service (or service for an indefinite period) and in temporary (or fixed-term) service, without any legislative provision guaranteeing workers who are in temporary service opportunities to retain the working relationship following the reorganisation of the body for which they work, compatible with Directive 1999/70/EC and the principle of non-discrimination?

Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).