26.2.2011

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/14

(Case C-20/10) (<span class="super">1</span>)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clauses 3 and 8 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - First or single use of a contract - Obligation to state the objective reasons - Elimination - Reduction in the general level of protection of employees - Principle of non-discrimination - Articles 82 EC and 86 EC)

2011/C 63/26

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vino Cosimo Damiano

Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Trani — Interpretation of Clauses 3 and 8(3) of 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 (OJ 1999 L 175, p.43) — Compatibility of an internal rule validating in the internal legal an ‘acausal’ case for the engagement of workers by Poste Italiane SpA on fixed-term contracts

Operative part of the order

1.Clause 8(3) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed 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 not precluding national legislation, such as that provided for by Article 2(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 368 implementing Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP of 6 September 2001 (decreto legislativo n. 368, attuazione della direttiva 1999/70/CE relativa all’accordo quadro sul lavoro a tempo determinato concluso dall’UNICE, dal CEEP e dal CES), which, unlike the national rules applicable before the entry into force of that decree, allows a company such as Poste Italiane SpA, to conclude, subject to certain conditions, a first or single use of a fixed-term contracts with a worker, such as Mr Vino, without having to state the objective reasons which justify the use of a contract concluded for such a duration, since that legislation is not connected to the implementation of the Framework Agreement. It is in that regard, in principle, irrelevant whether the objective pursued by that legislation provides protection at least equivalent to the protection of fixed-term workers referred to in the Framework Agreement.

2.The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the fourth question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal di Trani (Italy).

3.The fifth question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal di Trani is manifestly inadmissible.

(1)

OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.