# C_2008327EN.01000801.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Roma (Italy) lodged on 12 September 2008 — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Tiziana Bruno and Massimo Pettini

(Case C-395/08)

(2008/C 327/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d'appello di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Applicant:

Defendants: Tiziana Bruno and Massimo Pettini

Defendants:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the Italian State legislation (Article 7(1) of Law No 638/83) (1) which results in periods not worked under ‘vertical’ part-time arrangements not being taken into account as periods of qualifying contributions for the purpose of acquiring pension rights compatible with Directive 97/81/EC, and in particular Clause 4 [of the Framework Agreement] concerning the principle of non-discrimination? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Italian State legislation (Article 7(1) of Law No 638/83) (1) which results in periods not worked under ‘vertical’ part-time arrangements not being taken into account as periods of qualifying contributions for the purpose of acquiring pension rights compatible with Directive 97/81/EC, and in particular Clause 4 [of the Framework Agreement] concerning the principle of non-discrimination?

1

| 2. | Are those national provisions compatible with Directive 97/81/EC and, in particular, Clause 1 [of the Framework Agreement], which provides that national legislation must facilitate the development of part-time work, and Clauses 4 and 5, which provide that the Member States are to eliminate obstacles of a legal nature which may limit access to part-time work, since it is unquestionable that the failure to take into account for pension purposes the weeks not worked constitutes a significant disincentive to choosing ‘vertical’ part-time working arrangements? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are those national provisions compatible with Directive 97/81/EC and, in particular, Clause 1 [of the Framework Agreement], which provides that national legislation must facilitate the development of part-time work, and Clauses 4 and 5, which provide that the Member States are to eliminate obstacles of a legal nature which may limit access to part-time work, since it is unquestionable that the failure to take into account for pension purposes the weeks not worked constitutes a significant disincentive to choosing ‘vertical’ part-time working arrangements?

| 3. | Can Clause 4 [of the Framework Agreement] on the principle of non-discrimination also be extended to various kinds of part-time contract, in view of the fact that, in the case of ‘horizontal’ part-time work, where the total number of hours worked and for which remuneration is paid in the calendar year is equal, all the weeks of the calendar year are taken into account under national legislation, whereas they are not in the case of ‘vertical’ part-time work? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can Clause 4 [of the Framework Agreement] on the principle of non-discrimination also be extended to various kinds of part-time contract, in view of the fact that, in the case of ‘horizontal’ part-time work, where the total number of hours worked and for which remuneration is paid in the calendar year is equal, all the weeks of the calendar year are taken into account under national legislation, whereas they are not in the case of ‘vertical’ part-time work?

where the total number of hours worked and for which remuneration is paid in the calendar year is equal

---

(1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time work — OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.

1

---