# C_2004179EN.01000802.xml

| 10.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis (Greece) by order of that court of 8 April 2004 in the case of Konstantinos Adeler and Others against Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos

(Case C-212/04)

(2004/C 179/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis of 8 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 17 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Konstantinos Adeler and Others against Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos on the following questions:

| 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 passed without transposition being effected, or (c) the time when the national measure implementing it entered into force? |
| --- | --- |

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 passed without transposition being effected, or (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/EC (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43), mean that, in addition to reasons connected with the nature, type or characteristics of the work performed or other similar reasons, the fact solely and simply 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/EC (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43), mean that, in addition to reasons connected with the nature, type or characteristics of the work performed or other similar reasons, the fact solely and simply 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/EC (OJ 1999) L175, p. 43), 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 if a period of at most 20 working days separates them [must be disapplied] 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 must be applied in the above circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

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/EC (OJ 1999) L175, p. 43), 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 if a period of at most 20 working days separates them [must be disapplied] 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 must be applied in the above circumstances?

| 4. | Is the prohibition, in Article 21 of Greek Law 2190/1994, of the conversion of successive fixed-term employment contracts into contracts of unlimited duration, when those contracts are said to have been concluded for a fixed term to cover the exceptional or seasonal needs of the employer but are aimed at covering its fixed and permanent needs, compatible with the principle of 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/EC (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the prohibition, in Article 21 of Greek Law 2190/1994, of the conversion of successive fixed-term employment contracts into contracts of unlimited duration, when those contracts are said to have been concluded for a fixed term to cover the exceptional or seasonal needs of the employer but are aimed at covering its fixed and permanent needs, compatible with the principle of 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/EC (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43)?

---