- 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-177/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 3 and 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — ‘Non-permanent staff’ — Refusal to grant a three-yearly length-of-service increment — Objective grounds)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CA0177
62014CA0177
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 294/9
(Case C-177/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 3 and 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - ‘Non-permanent staff’ - Refusal to grant a three-yearly length-of-service increment - Objective grounds))
(2015/C 294/11)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: María José Regojo Dans
Defendant: Consejo de Estado
Operative part of the judgment
1.The concept of a ‘fixed-term worker’, within the meaning of clause 3(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex 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 applying to a worker such as the applicant in the main proceedings.
2.Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes, without justification on objective grounds, non-permanent staff from the right to receive a three-yearly length-of-service increment granted, inter alia, to career civil servants when, as regards the receipt of that increment, those two categories of workers are in comparable situations, a matter which is for the referring court to ascertain.
* Language of the case: Spanish.
(OJ C 253, 4.8.2014)