# C_2004146EN.01000101.xml

| 29.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/1

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht München, by judgment of that court of 26 February 2004 in the case of Werner Mangold against Rüdiger Helm

(Case C-144/04)

(2004/C 146/01)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Arbeitsgericht München, of 26 February 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 17 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Werner Mangold against Rüdiger Helm on the following questions:

1(a)

| Is Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement (Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP) to be interpreted as prohibiting, in the course of the implementation of that agreement in national law, any reduced protection as a result of a reduction in the age limit from 60 to 58? | 1(b) |
| --- | --- |

Is Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement (Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP) to be interpreted as prohibiting, in the course of the implementation of that agreement in national law, any reduced protection as a result of a reduction in the age limit from 60 to 58?

1

1(b)

| Is Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement (Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which – like the provision at issue in this case – does not contain any of the three restrictions set out in paragraph 1 of that clause? | 2. |
| --- | --- |

Is Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement (Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which – like the provision at issue in this case – does not contain any of the three restrictions set out in paragraph 1 of that clause?

2.

| Is Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (2) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which – like under the provision at issue in this case – fixed-term employment contracts may be concluded, without any objective reason, with workers aged 52 and over, thus running counter to the principle of justification on objective grounds? | 3. |
| --- | --- |

Is Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (2) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which – like under the provision at issue in this case – fixed-term employment contracts may be concluded, without any objective reason, with workers aged 52 and over, thus running counter to the principle of justification on objective grounds?

2

3.

| If one of those three questions is answered in the affirmative: | Must the national court refuse to apply the provision of national law which conflicts with Community law and, in that case, does the general principle laid down in national law apply, under which fixed terms of employment are permissible only if they are justified on an objective ground? |
| --- | --- |

If one of those three questions is answered in the affirmative:

Must the national court refuse to apply the provision of national law which conflicts with Community law and, in that case, does the general principle laid down in national law apply, under which fixed terms of employment are permissible only if they are justified on an objective ground?

---

(1)  OJ L 175, p. 43.

1

(2)  OJ L 303, p. 16.

2

---