# C_2017030EN.01002101.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 14 November 2016 — Grupo Norte Facility, S.A. v Angel Manuel Moreira Gómez

(Case C-574/16)

(2017/C 030/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Grupo Norte Facility, S.A. (formerly Limpiezas Pisuerga Grupo Norte Limpisa, S.A.)

Appellant:

Respondent: Angel Manuel Moreira Gómez

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | For the purposes of the principle of equivalence between workers with fixed-term contracts and those with contracts of indefinite duration, must ending of the employment contract due to ‘objective circumstances’ under Article 49(1)(c) ET [Estatuto de los Trabajadores: Workers’ Statute] and its ending on ‘objective grounds’ under Article 52 ET be regarded as ‘comparable situations’ and does, therefore, the difference between the compensation payable in either case constitute unequal treatment of between workers with fixed-term contracts and those with contracts of indefinite duration, prohibited by Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP? |
| --- | --- |

1.

For the purposes of the principle of equivalence between workers with fixed-term contracts and those with contracts of indefinite duration, must ending of the employment contract due to ‘objective circumstances’ under Article 49(1)(c) ET [Estatuto de los Trabajadores: Workers’ Statute] and its ending on ‘objective grounds’ under Article 52 ET be regarded as ‘comparable situations’ and does, therefore, the difference between the compensation payable in either case constitute unequal treatment of between workers with fixed-term contracts and those with contracts of indefinite duration, prohibited by Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP?

1

| 2. | If so, must the social-policy objectives legitimising the creation of the ‘contrato de relevo’ model of contract also be deemed to justify, under clause 4.1 of the abovementioned framework agreement, the difference in treatment relating to the lower amount of compensation for termination of the employment relationship when the employer freely decides that such a ‘contrato de relevo’ should be for a fixed term? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, must the social-policy objectives legitimising the creation of the ‘contrato de relevo’ model of contract also be deemed to justify, under clause 4.1 of the abovementioned framework agreement, the difference in treatment relating to the lower amount of compensation for termination of the employment relationship when the employer freely decides that such a ‘contrato de relevo’ should be for a fixed term?

| 3. | For the purposes of guaranteeing the practical effect of Directive 1999/70 EC, if there should be found to be no reasonable justification under clause 4.1, is the unequal treatment of temporary and permanent employees with regard to compensation for termination of their contracts, laid down in the Spanish legislation referred to above, to be interpreted as constituting discrimination of the kind prohibited by Article 21 of the Charter, and therefore as contrary to the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination that are part of the general principles of EU law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the purposes of guaranteeing the practical effect of Directive 1999/70 EC, if there should be found to be no reasonable justification under clause 4.1, is the unequal treatment of temporary and permanent employees with regard to compensation for termination of their contracts, laid down in the Spanish legislation referred to above, to be interpreted as constituting discrimination of the kind prohibited by Article 21 of the Charter, and therefore as contrary to the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination that are part of the general principles of EU law?

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.

1

---