# C_2010134EN.01001501.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani (Italy) lodged on 13 January 2010 — Vino Cosimo Damiano v Poste Italiane SpA

(Case C-20/10)

2010/C 134/24

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Trani

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vino Cosimo Damiano

Applicant:

Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1999/70/EC (1) preclude domestic rules (such as that laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case for the engagement of workers by Poste Italiane SpA on fixed-term contracts? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1999/70/EC (1) preclude domestic rules (such as that laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case for the engagement of workers by Poste Italiane SpA on fixed-term contracts?

1

| 2. | In order to justify a reformatio in pejus of the previous rules on fixed-term contracts and to preclude the operation of the prohibition laid down in Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1999/70/EC, is it sufficient for the national legislature to pursue any objective, provided that it is an objective other than that of implementing that directive, or is it necessary for such an objective not only to merit at least equal protection to the objective in respect of which penalties are imposed but also for it to be expressly ‘stated’? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In order to justify a reformatio in pejus of the previous rules on fixed-term contracts and to preclude the operation of the prohibition laid down in Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1999/70/EC, is it sufficient for the national legislature to pursue any objective, provided that it is an objective other than that of implementing that directive, or is it necessary for such an objective not only to merit at least equal protection to the objective in respect of which penalties are imposed but also for it to be expressly ‘stated’?

reformatio in pejus

| 3. | Does Clause 3(1) of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1999/70/EC preclude domestic rules (such as those laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case for the engagement of workers by Poste Italiane SpA on fixed-term contracts? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Clause 3(1) of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1999/70/EC preclude domestic rules (such as those laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case for the engagement of workers by Poste Italiane SpA on fixed-term contracts?

| 4. | Does the general Community principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment preclude domestic rules (such as that laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case which places employees of Poste Italiane SpA at a disadvantage not only vis-à-vis that company but also other undertakings in the same sector or in other sectors? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the general Community principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment preclude domestic rules (such as that laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case which places employees of Poste Italiane SpA at a disadvantage not only vis-à-vis that company but also other undertakings in the same sector or in other sectors?

| 5. | Do Article 82 [EC], first paragraph, and Article 86(1) and (2) [EC] preclude domestic rules (such as those laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case which benefits only Poste Italiane SpA (an entirely publicly owned entity), giving rise to potential abuse of a dominant position? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Do Article 82 [EC], first paragraph, and Article 86(1) and (2) [EC] preclude domestic rules (such as those laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case which benefits only Poste Italiane SpA (an entirely publicly owned entity), giving rise to potential abuse of a dominant position?

| 6. | If the answer to the foregoing questions is in the affirmative, is the national court required to disapply (or not to apply) the national rules which are contrary to Community law? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the answer to the foregoing questions is in the affirmative, is the national court required to disapply (or not to apply) the national rules which are contrary to Community law?

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.

1

---