# C_2010221EN.01001201.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani (Italy)) — Francesca Sorge v Poste Italiane SpA

(Case C-98/09) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work - Clause 8 - Details to be included in a fixed-term contract concluded for the purpose of replacing an absent worker - Reduction of the general level of protection afforded to workers - Interpretation in conformity with European Union law)

2010/C 221/19

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Trani

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francesca Sorge

Applicant:

Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Trani — Interpretation of clause 8 of the Annex to 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) — Domestic legislation that does not provide, on the signature of a fixed-term replacement contract, for the names of the persons replaced and the reasons for their replacement to be indicated

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Clause 8(3) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 contained in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding domestic legislation, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which has abolished the requirement for the employer to indicate in fixed-term contracts concluded for the purpose of replacing absent workers the names of those workers and the reasons for their replacement, and which merely provides that such fixed-term contracts must be in writing and must indicate the reasons for the use of those contracts, in so far as those new conditions are offset by the adoption of other safeguards or protective measures or concern only a limited category of workers having entered into a fixed-term employment contract, which it is for the national court to ascertain. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Clause 8(3) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 contained in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding domestic legislation, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which has abolished the requirement for the employer to indicate in fixed-term contracts concluded for the purpose of replacing absent workers the names of those workers and the reasons for their replacement, and which merely provides that such fixed-term contracts must be in writing and must indicate the reasons for the use of those contracts, in so far as those new conditions are offset by the adoption of other safeguards or protective measures or concern only a limited category of workers having entered into a fixed-term employment contract, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

| 2. | Because clause 8(3) of that framework agreement has no direct effect, it is for the national court, if it should be led to conclude that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is incompatible with European Union law, not to disapply that provision but, so far as possible, to give it an interpretation in conformity with Directive 1999/70 and with the objective pursued by that framework agreement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Because clause 8(3) of that framework agreement has no direct effect, it is for the national court, if it should be led to conclude that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is incompatible with European Union law, not to disapply that provision but, so far as possible, to give it an interpretation in conformity with Directive 1999/70 and with the objective pursued by that framework agreement.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.

1

---