# C_2010179EN.01001602.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 12 de Sevilla (Spain) lodged on 7 April 2010 — Francisco Javier Rosado Santana v Consejería de la Justicia y Administración Pública de la Junta de Andalucía

(Case C-177/10)

(2010/C 179/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 12 de Sevilla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francisco Javier Rosado Santana

Defendant: Consejería de la Justicia y Administración Pública de la Junta de Andalucía

Questions referred

| 1. | Is [Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, if the Constitutional Court of a Member State has ruled that the establishment of different rights for temporary civil servants and career civil servants of that State might not be contrary to its Constitution, that necessarily means that the directive is excluded from applying in the sphere of that State’s civil service? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is [Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, if the Constitutional Court of a Member State has ruled that the establishment of different rights for temporary civil servants and career civil servants of that State might not be contrary to its Constitution, that necessarily means that the directive is excluded from applying in the sphere of that State’s civil service?

| 2. | Is Directive 1999/70 to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national court from interpreting the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in a manner which generally excludes from their scope the placing of temporary civil servants and career civil servants on an equal footing? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Directive 1999/70 to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national court from interpreting the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in a manner which generally excludes from their scope the placing of temporary civil servants and career civil servants on an equal footing?

| 3. | Is Clause 4 to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a refusal to take into account as length of service, in attaining the status of member of the permanent staff, previous periods of service as a temporary employee, specifically for the purposes of remuneration, grading and career advancement in the civil service? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Clause 4 to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a refusal to take into account as length of service, in attaining the status of member of the permanent staff, previous periods of service as a temporary employee, specifically for the purposes of remuneration, grading and career advancement in the civil service?

| 4. | Does Clause 4 require an interpretation of the national legislation to the effect that it does not exclude from the calculation of length of service of civil servants periods worked under a temporary employment relationship? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does Clause 4 require an interpretation of the national legislation to the effect that it does not exclude from the calculation of length of service of civil servants periods worked under a temporary employment relationship?

| 5. | Is Clause 4 to be interpreted as meaning that, even though the rules of a public selection process were published and were not contested by the applicant, the national court must examine whether those rules are contrary to the Community legislation and, in that case, must the national court refrain from applying those rules or the national provision on which they are based in so far as they conflict with that clause? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is Clause 4 to be interpreted as meaning that, even though the rules of a public selection process were published and were not contested by the applicant, the national court must examine whether those rules are contrary to the Community legislation and, in that case, must the national court refrain from applying those rules or the national provision on which they are based in so far as they conflict with that clause?

---

(1)  OJ L 175, p. 43

---