# C_2015127EN.01000302.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/3

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Granada (Spain) — Marta León Medialdea v Ayuntamiento de Huetor Vega

(Case C-86/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector - Clause 3.1 - Definition of ‘fixed-term worker’ - Clause 5. 1 - Measures to prevent the abusive use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships - Penalties - Conversion of temporary contracts into non-permanent contracts of an indefinite duration - Right to compensation))

(2015/C 127/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Granada (Spain)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marta León Medialdea

Applicants:

Defendants: Ayuntamiento de Huetor Vega

Defendants:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Clauses 2 and 3.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 which is annexed 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 meaning that a worker, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, comes within the scope of that framework agreement in so far as that worker is bound to his or her employer by fixed-term employment contracts within the meaning of those clauses. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Clauses 2 and 3.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 which is annexed 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 meaning that a worker, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, comes within the scope of that framework agreement in so far as that worker is bound to his or her employer by fixed-term employment contracts within the meaning of those clauses.

| 2. | The framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which contains no effective measures for penalising abuse, within the meaning of Clause 5.1 of that framework agreement, resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts by a public sector employer, where there is no effective measure in the internal legal order for penalising such abuse. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The framework agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which contains no effective measures for penalising abuse, within the meaning of Clause 5.1 of that framework agreement, resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts by a public sector employer, where there is no effective measure in the internal legal order for penalising such abuse.

| 3. | It is for the referring court to assess, in accordance with the legislation, collective agreements and/or national practice, what the nature of the compensation granted to a worker, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, should be in order for that compensation to constitute a sufficiently effective measure to penalise the abuse, within the meaning of Clause 5.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work.
  It is also for the referring court, should it be necessary, to give the relevant provisions of domestic law an interpretation which is, so far as possible, consistent with EU law. |
| --- | --- |

3.

It is for the referring court to assess, in accordance with the legislation, collective agreements and/or national practice, what the nature of the compensation granted to a worker, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, should be in order for that compensation to constitute a sufficiently effective measure to penalise the abuse, within the meaning of Clause 5.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work.

It is also for the referring court, should it be necessary, to give the relevant provisions of domestic law an interpretation which is, so far as possible, consistent with EU law.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

1

---