# C_2019406EN.01001002.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 28 August 2019 — FT v Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, GS and Others, and Ministerul Educației Naționale

(Case C-644/19)

(2019/C 406/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: FT

Respondents: Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, GS and Others, and Ministerul Educației Naționale

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 1, Article 2(2)(b) and Article 3 of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) and Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, implemented by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is discriminatory, within the meaning of those provisions, where it enables an employer to decide that individuals who have reached the age of 65 may continue to perform their duties as tenured members of staff and retain the rights which they enjoyed prior to retirement only if they have doctoral supervisor status, thereby placing at a disadvantage other individuals in a similar situation who may do the same only if there are vacant posts and they meet certain requirements relating to professional performance, and to require individuals who do not have doctoral supervisor status to perform similar academic duties under successive fixed-term employment contracts under which they receive remuneration on an ‘hourly basis’ at a level below that paid to tenured members of a university’s staff? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 1, Article 2(2)(b) and Article 3 of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) and Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, implemented by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that a measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is discriminatory, within the meaning of those provisions, where it enables an employer to decide that individuals who have reached the age of 65 may continue to perform their duties as tenured members of staff and retain the rights which they enjoyed prior to retirement only if they have doctoral supervisor status, thereby placing at a disadvantage other individuals in a similar situation who may do the same only if there are vacant posts and they meet certain requirements relating to professional performance, and to require individuals who do not have doctoral supervisor status to perform similar academic duties under successive fixed-term employment contracts under which they receive remuneration on an ‘hourly basis’ at a level below that paid to tenured members of a university’s staff?

| 2. | Can the precedence in the application of EU law (the principle of the primacy of EU law) be interpreted as permitting a national court to disapply a final ruling of another national court in which it has been held that, in the factual situation described, Directive 2000/78/EC has been complied with and there has been no discrimination? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can the precedence in the application of EU law (the principle of the primacy of EU law) be interpreted as permitting a national court to disapply a final ruling of another national court in which it has been held that, in the factual situation described, Directive 2000/78/EC has been complied with and there has been no discrimination?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

(2)  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).

---