# C_2006212EN.01001601.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Labour Court (Ireland) made on 19 June 2006 — Impact v Minister for Agriculture and Food, Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Minister for Transport

(Case C-268/06)

(2006/C 212/28)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Labour Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Impact

Applicant:

Defendant: Minister for Agriculture and Food, Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Minister for Transport

Defendant:

Questions referred

Question 1

Question 1

In deciding a case at first instance under a provision of domestic law or in determining an appeal against such a decision, are the Rights Commissioners and the Labour Court required by any principle of Community law (in particular the principle of equivalence and effectiveness) to apply a directly effective provision of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28th June 1999 concerning the framework agreement of fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (1) in circumstances where:

1

| — | The Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court have not been given express jurisdiction to do so under the domestic law of the Member State including the provisions of domestic law transposing the Directive, |
| --- | --- |

—

The Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court have not been given express jurisdiction to do so under the domestic law of the Member State including the provisions of domestic law transposing the Directive,

| — | Individuals can pursue alternative claims arising out of a failure by their employer to apply the Directive to their individual circumstances before the High Court and |
| --- | --- |

—

Individuals can pursue alternative claims arising out of a failure by their employer to apply the Directive to their individual circumstances before the High Court and

| — | Individuals can pursue alternative claims before an ordinary Court of competent jurisdiction against the Member State seeking damages for loss suffered by them arising from the Member States failure to transpose the Directive on time? |
| --- | --- |

—

Individuals can pursue alternative claims before an ordinary Court of competent jurisdiction against the Member State seeking damages for loss suffered by them arising from the Member States failure to transpose the Directive on time?

Question 2.

Question 2

If the answer to
  Question 1
  is in the Affirmative,

Question 1

| (a) | Is Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work concluded by ETUC, UNIC and CEEP annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC unconditional and sufficiently precise in its terms as to be capable of being relied upon by individuals before their national courts?. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Is Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work concluded by ETUC, UNIC and CEEP annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC unconditional and sufficiently precise in its terms as to be capable of being relied upon by individuals before their national courts?.

| (b) | Is Clauses 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work concluded by ETUC, UNIC and CEEP annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC unconditional and sufficiently precise in its terms as to be capable of being relied upon by individuals before their national courts? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is Clauses 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work concluded by ETUC, UNIC and CEEP annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC unconditional and sufficiently precise in its terms as to be capable of being relied upon by individuals before their national courts?

Question 3

Question 3

Having regard to the Court's answers to
  Question 1
  and
  Question 2(b)

  does clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work concluded by ETUC, UNIC and CEEP annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC preclude a Member State, acting in its capacity as an employer, from renewing a fixed term contract of employment for up to 8 years in the period after the said Directive should have been transposed and before the transposing legislation was enacted in domestic law where:

Question 1

Question 2(b)

d

| — | on all previous occasions the contract had been renewed for shorter periods, and the employer requires the services of the employee for the extended period, |
| --- | --- |

—

on all previous occasions the contract had been renewed for shorter periods, and the employer requires the services of the employee for the extended period,

| — | the renewal for the extended period has the effect of circumventing the application to an individual of the full benefit of Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement when transposed into domestic law, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the renewal for the extended period has the effect of circumventing the application to an individual of the full benefit of Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement when transposed into domestic law, and

| — | there are no objective reasons unrelated to the employee's status as a fixed-term worker for such a renewal. |
| --- | --- |

—

there are no objective reasons unrelated to the employee's status as a fixed-term worker for such a renewal.

Question 4

Question 4

If the answer to
  Question 1
  or
  Question 2
  is in the negative, is the Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court required by any provision of Community law (and in particular the obligation to interpret domestic law in light of the wording and purpose of a Directive so as to produce the result pursued by the Directive) to interpret provisions of domestic law enacted for the purpose of transposing Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28th June 1999 concerning the framework agreement of fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP as having retrospective effect to the date on which the said Directive should have been transposed where:

Question 1

Question 2

| — | The wording of the provision of domestic law does not expressly preclude such an interpretation, but, |
| --- | --- |

—

The wording of the provision of domestic law does not expressly preclude such an interpretation, but,

| — | A rule of domestic law governing the construction of statutes precludes such retrospective application unless there is a clear and unambiguous indication to the contrary? |
| --- | --- |

—

A rule of domestic law governing the construction of statutes precludes such retrospective application unless there is a clear and unambiguous indication to the contrary?

Question 5

Question 5

If the answer to
  Question 1 or Question 4
  is in the affirmative, do the ‘employment conditions’ to which clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1990/70/EC refers include conditions of an employment contract relating to remuneration and pensions?

Question 1 or Question 4

---

(1)  OJ L 175, p. 43

1

---