- 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-46/17: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Bremen — Germany) — Hubertus John v Freie Hansestadt Bremen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Clause 5(1) — Measures aimed at preventing the misuse of fixed-term contracts — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age — National legislation authorising the postponement of the end of the contract of employment fixed at the normal retirement age simply because that the worker qualified for a retirement pension)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CA0046
62017CA0046
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
23.4.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 142/13
(Case C-46/17) (<span class="super note-tag">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 - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Clause 5(1) - Measures aimed at preventing the misuse of fixed-term contracts - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 6(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of age - National legislation authorising the postponement of the end of the contract of employment fixed at the normal retirement age simply because that the worker qualified for a retirement pension))
(2018/C 142/17)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Hubertus John
Defendant: Freie Hansestadt Bremen
Operative part of the judgment
1)Article 2(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to the extent that it makes the postponement of the date of termination of employment of workers who have reached the legal qualifying age for a retirement pension subject to the agreement of the employers given for a fixed term.
2)Clause 5(1) of Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, 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 meaning that it does not preclude a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it permits the parties to a contract of employment, without additional requirements, indefinitely to postpone, by common agreement during the course of the employment relationship, including on more than one occasion if necessary, the agreed date of termination related to reaching the normal retirement age, simply because that worker, by reaching the normal retirement age, is entitled to a retirement pension.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.