# C_2016410EN.01000401.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 8 August 2016 — Francisco Rodrigo Sanz v Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

(Case C-443/16)

(2016/C 410/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francisco Rodrigo Sanz

Applicant:

Defendant: Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC (1) be construed as precluding rules such as those described from allowing a reduction in working hours solely because the person involved is an interim civil servant [(funcionario interino (person appointed to a civil service post on a temporary basis))]?
  If the answer is in the affirmative:
  Can the economic situation, which makes a reduction in expenditure necessary, and which has been compelled by the reduction in the budget appropriation, be regarded as an objective ground which justifies this difference in treatment?
  Can the administration’s prerogative to organise itself be regarded as an objective ground which justifies this difference in treatment? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC (1) be construed as precluding rules such as those described from allowing a reduction in working hours solely because the person involved is an interim civil servant [(funcionario interino (person appointed to a civil service post on a temporary basis))]?

1

funcionario interino

If the answer is in the affirmative:

Can the economic situation, which makes a reduction in expenditure necessary, and which has been compelled by the reduction in the budget appropriation, be regarded as an objective ground which justifies this difference in treatment?

Can the administration’s prerogative to organise itself be regarded as an objective ground which justifies this difference in treatment?

| 2. | Must clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC be construed to the effect that the administration’s prerogative to organise itself is, always and in any event, limited by the obligation not to discriminate against or to treat differently employees in its service, irrespective of whether they are classified as career civil servants, or interim, casual or temporary civil servants? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC be construed to the effect that the administration’s prerogative to organise itself is, always and in any event, limited by the obligation not to discriminate against or to treat differently employees in its service, irrespective of whether they are classified as career civil servants, or interim, casual or temporary civil servants?

| 3. | Can the interpretation and application of point 3 of the second additional provision (‘College Lecturers and their integration with University Lecturers’) of Basic Law 4/2007 of 12 April 2007, amending Basic Law 6/2001 of 21 December 2001 relating to Universities (Ley Orgánica 4/2007, de 12 de abril, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 6/2001, de 21 de diciembre, de Universidades), be construed as being contrary to clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC in so far as, in the process for college lecturers joining the body of university lecturers, college lecturers [appointed on a permanent basis] are allowed to retain all their rights and their full capacity to teach, even though they do not have a doctorate degree, while this is not allowed for interim college lecturers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the interpretation and application of point 3 of the second additional provision (‘College Lecturers and their integration with University Lecturers’) of Basic Law 4/2007 of 12 April 2007, amending Basic Law 6/2001 of 21 December 2001 relating to Universities (Ley Orgánica 4/2007, de 12 de abril, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 6/2001, de 21 de diciembre, de Universidades), be construed as being contrary to clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC in so far as, in the process for college lecturers joining the body of university lecturers, college lecturers [appointed on a permanent basis] are allowed to retain all their rights and their full capacity to teach, even though they do not have a doctorate degree, while this is not allowed for interim college lecturers?

| 4. | In so far as the requirement for a doctorate degree is the objective justification claimed for interim college lecturers without such a degree having their working hours reduced to 50 %, which does not, however, apply to non-interim college lecturers who do not have a doctorate degree either, can this be construed as discriminatory and therefore contrary to clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In so far as the requirement for a doctorate degree is the objective justification claimed for interim college lecturers without such a degree having their working hours reduced to 50 %, which does not, however, apply to non-interim college lecturers who do not have a doctorate degree either, can this be construed as discriminatory and therefore contrary to clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC?

---

(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

1

---