# C_2007247EN.01001202.xml

| 20.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Kerkyras (Greece) lodged on 2 August 2007 — Spyridon Vassilakis and Others v Municipality of Corfu

(Case C-364/07)

(2007/C 247/16)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikio Kerkyras (Corfu Court of First Instance)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Spyridon Vassilakis and Others

Applicants:

Defendant: Dimos Kerkyras (Municipality of Corfu)

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must a national court — as far as possible — interpret its domestic law in accordance with a directive which was transposed belatedly into its national legal system from






  (a) | the time when the directive entered into force, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Must a national court — as far as possible — interpret its domestic law in accordance with a directive which was transposed belatedly into its national legal system from

(a)

the time when the directive entered into force, or

| (b) | the time when the time-limit for transposing it into national law elapsed without any action having been taken, or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the time when the time-limit for transposing it into national law elapsed without any action having been taken, or

| (c) | the time when the national measure implementing it entered into force? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the time when the national measure implementing it entered into force?

| 2. | Does Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999) mean that, apart from reasons connected with the nature, type or characteristics of the work performed or other similar reasons, the mere fact that the conclusion of a fixed term contract is required by a provision of law or secondary legislation constitutes an objective reason for continually renewing or concluding successive fixed-term employment contracts? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999) mean that, apart from reasons connected with the nature, type or characteristics of the work performed or other similar reasons, the mere fact that the conclusion of a fixed term contract is required by a provision of law or secondary legislation constitutes an objective reason for continually renewing or concluding successive fixed-term employment contracts?

| 3. | May Clause 5(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999), be interpreted to the effect that national provisions which lay down that fixed-term employment contracts or relationships are to be regarded as successive only provided a period of at most three months separates them and, further, that the presumption introduced in favour of the worker that successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships should be recognised as of unlimited duration is necessarily based on the above precondition? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May Clause 5(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999), be interpreted to the effect that national provisions which lay down that fixed-term employment contracts or relationships are to be regarded as successive only provided a period of at most three months separates them and, further, that the presumption introduced in favour of the worker that successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships should be recognised as of unlimited duration is necessarily based on the above precondition?

| 4. | Is the prohibition in Article 21 of Law 2190/1994 of the conversion of successive fixed-term contracts of employment into contracts of unlimited duration, those contracts having been concluded for a fixed term in order to cover the exceptional or seasonal needs of the employer but in fact for the purpose of meeting its fixed and permanent needs, compatible with the principle of the effectiveness of Community law and the purpose of Clause 5(1) and (2), in conjunction with Clause 1 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the prohibition in Article 21 of Law 2190/1994 of the conversion of successive fixed-term contracts of employment into contracts of unlimited duration, those contracts having been concluded for a fixed term in order to cover the exceptional or seasonal needs of the employer but in fact for the purpose of meeting its fixed and permanent needs, compatible with the principle of the effectiveness of Community law and the purpose of Clause 5(1) and (2), in conjunction with Clause 1 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999)?

| 5. | Is the fact that an independent administrative authority, the Anotato Simvoulio Epilogis Prosopikou (ASEP — the Supreme Staff Selection Council) has the final word, under a national provision, enacted in application of the above directive, on whether or not fixed-term contracts can be converted into contracts of indefinite duration compatible with the principle of the effectiveness of Community law and the purpose of Clause 5(1) and (2), in conjunction with Clause 1 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999)? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the fact that an independent administrative authority, the Anotato Simvoulio Epilogis Prosopikou (ASEP — the Supreme Staff Selection Council) has the final word, under a national provision, enacted in application of the above directive, on whether or not fixed-term contracts can be converted into contracts of indefinite duration compatible with the principle of the effectiveness of Community law and the purpose of Clause 5(1) and (2), in conjunction with Clause 1 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999)?

---