- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-238/14: Action brought on 13 May 2014 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CN0238
62014CN0238
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
21.7.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 235/10
(Case C-238/14)
2014/C 235/14
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and D, Martin, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—declare that, by maintaining in force derogations from the measures aimed at preventing abuse of successive fixed-term contracts concluded with occasional entertainment workers, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (1);
—order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By maintaining in force derogations from the measures aimed at preventing abuse of successive fixed-term contracts concluded with occasional entertainment workers, Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Clause 5 of the framework agreement.
The Commission considers that, for that category of workers, Luxembourg law does not provide for any objective reason allowing for the prevention of abuse of successive fixed-term contracts, contrary to Clause 5(1)(a) of the Annex to the framework agreement in question.
(1) OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.