# C_2011089EN.01000501.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2010 — Bianca Kücük v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-586/10)

2011/C 89/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bianca Kücük

Applicant:

Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it in breach of clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (1) for a national provision, which — like point 3 of the second sentence of Paragraph 14(1) of the Teilzeit- und Befristungsgesetz (Law on part-time working and fixed-term contracts, ‘the TzBfG’) — provides that there are objective grounds for repeated fixed-term work where one employee replaces another, to be interpreted and applied to mean that there are also objective grounds where there is a permanent need for a replacement although the need for a replacement could also be met by the employee concerned being employed for an indefinite duration and the replacement duties of one of the regular staff lost being assigned to him, but the employer reserves the right to decide anew in each case how it is to respond to a specific loss of staff? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it in breach of clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (1) for a national provision, which — like point 3 of the second sentence of Paragraph 14(1) of the Teilzeit- und Befristungsgesetz (Law on part-time working and fixed-term contracts, ‘the TzBfG’) — provides that there are objective grounds for repeated fixed-term work where one employee replaces another, to be interpreted and applied to mean that there are also objective grounds where there is a permanent need for a replacement although the need for a replacement could also be met by the employee concerned being employed for an indefinite duration and the replacement duties of one of the regular staff lost being assigned to him, but the employer reserves the right to decide anew in each case how it is to respond to a specific loss of staff?

1

If the answer to the first question should be in the affirmative:

| 2. | Is such interpretation and application of a national provision such as point 3 of the second sentence of Paragraph 14(1) TzBfG, as per the first question, in breach of clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 in the circumstances described in the first question even where the national legislature, with the replacement-type objective reason provided for in a national provision such as Paragraph 21(1) of the Bundeselterngeld- und Elternzeitgesetz (Law on parental leave and benefit, ‘BEEG’) justifying fixed-term work, also pursues the social-policy objective of making it easier for an employer to grant special leave and for an employee to avail him/herself of it for reasons of maternity protection or parenting, for instance? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is such interpretation and application of a national provision such as point 3 of the second sentence of Paragraph 14(1) TzBfG, as per the first question, in breach of clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 in the circumstances described in the first question even where the national legislature, with the replacement-type objective reason provided for in a national provision such as Paragraph 21(1) of the Bundeselterngeld- und Elternzeitgesetz (Law on parental leave and benefit, ‘BEEG’) justifying fixed-term work, also pursues the social-policy objective of making it easier for an employer to grant special leave and for an employee to avail him/herself of it for reasons of maternity protection or parenting, for instance?

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43

1

---