- 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-41/23, Peigli: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 26 January 2023 — AV, BT, CV, DW v Ministero della Giustizia
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CN0041
62023CN0041
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
11.4.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 127/20
(Case C-41/23, Peigli (*) )
(2023/C 127/24)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: AV, BT, CV, DW
Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia
Questions referred
1.Should Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 (*) and Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide, in respect of giudici onorari di Tribunale (lay district court judges) and vice procuratori onorari della Repubblica (lay deputy public prosecutors), any entitlement to remuneration during the non-working holiday period, or to compulsory social security and insurance protection against workplace accidents and illnesses?
2.Should Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the fixed-term employment relationship of giudici onorari (lay judges) — which can be classified as a service relationship and not as an employment relationship with a public authority, and which is based on an initial appointment and a single subsequent reappointment — may be extended several times by means of laws at State level, in the absence of effective and dissuasive penalties and without the possibility of transforming those relationships into employment contracts of indefinite duration with a public authority, in a factual situation which could have produced compensatory favourable legal effects for the individuals concerned, as their appointments have been extended in an essentially automatic manner for a further period of time?
(*) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
(*) Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).