- 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: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sala Tercera de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 10 April 2014 — María José Regojo Dans v Consejo de Estado
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CN0177
62014CN0177
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 253/16
(Case C-177/14)
2014/C 253/20
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: María José Regojo Dans
Defendant: Consejo de Estado
Questions referred
1.Does the definition of ‘fixed-term worker’ in clause 3(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999, include ‘non-permanent staff’ (‘personal eventual’) who are currently governed by Article 12 of Law 7/2007 of 12 April 2007 on the basic regulations relating to public servants and ‘non-permanent staff’ who were previously governed by Article 20(2) of Law 30/1984 of 2 August 1984 on measures for the reform of the civil service?
2.Is the principle of non-discrimination in clause 4(4) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP applicable to such ‘non-permanent staff’, so that they may be granted the right to receive and be paid the remuneration in respect of length of service which is paid to career civil servants, staff engaged under employment contracts for an indefinite duration, interim (non-established) civil servants and staff engaged under temporary employment contracts?
3.Do the rules, laid down in the two aforementioned Spanish laws, whereby the appointment of such ‘non-permanent staff’ and the termination of their appointment are not — on account of the positions of trust involved — subject to any restrictions, come within the objective grounds which under clause 4 may justify different treatment?
(1) OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.