8.5.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/28

(Case C-796/22, INSS)

(2023/C 164/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Respondent: Bernardino

Other party to the proceedings: Lliza SL

Questions referred

1.Should the term ‘employment conditions’ used in Clause 4 of the Framework agreement on part-time work annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (1) be interpreted as including partial retirement benefits from Social Security for which the beneficiaries can only be full-time workers, and not part-time workers?

2.Should the term ‘part-time workers’ used in Clauses 2 and 3 of [the Framework Agreement annexed to] Directive 97/81/EC be interpreted as including employees under a permanent seasonal contract (contrato fijo-discontinuo)?

3.Should Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 97/81/EC be interpreted as precluding any legislation that prohibits part-time workers from receiving a partial retirement pension with a relief contract (contrato de relevo; a part-time contract covering hours not worked by employees taking partial retirement), therefore constituting discrimination not justified on objective grounds in relation to full-time workers?

4.Should Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (2) be interpreted as precluding regulations, such as the Spanish national regulations, that prevent persons working part-time from being beneficiaries and therefore from receiving a partial retirement pension (with the concurrent conclusion of a relief contract), thereby constituting discrimination on grounds of sex which is not justified on objective grounds?

(1) OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.

(2) OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.