Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2019:1081
Date: 2019-12-11
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Social Policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary C-483/19 — 1 
Case C-483/19 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
24 June 2019 
Referring court:  
Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
14 June 2019 
Appellant, defendant in the initial proceedings:  
Ville de Verviers 
Respondent, applicant in the initial proceedings:  
J 
  
I. Subject matter and circumstances of the dispute 
1 J was employed as an administrative member of the auxiliary staff of the City of 
Verviers until 31 October 2014 within the specific framework of the ‘DEFIS 
VESDRE’ social project, the main purpose of which is to combat discrimination 
and domestic violence. 
2 The ‘DEFIS VESDRE’ social project received regional and European public 
subsidies. It lays down a specific framework providing staff training and 
vocational reintegration assistance. 
3 J first of all completed an individual training programme within the framework of 
a vocational retraining and adjustment contract to promote equal employment 
opportunities for people with disabilities between 1 April and 30 September 2009. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-483/19 
 
2  
Anonymised Version 
4 J was then employed under three fixed-term employment contracts concluded 
within the framework of assistance schemes to promote integration or 
reintegration into the labour market (career transition programmes) between the 
periods from 1 October 2009 to 31 August 2010; 1 September 2010 to 3 August 
2011 and 1 September 2011 to 31 March 2012. 
5 Each of those contracts indicated that ‘the worker is employed in order to meet the 
collective needs of society which are not addressed or are inadequately addressed 
by the ordinary labour market’. 
6 After a brief break in April 2012, J was once again employed by the City of 
Verviers within the framework of the ‘Plan Activa’ scheme intended to raise the 
employment rate of certain groups of workers through subsidised employment. 
7 J successively entered into three fixed-term employment contracts under that 
scheme (from 2 May 2012 to 1 May 2013; from 2 May 2013 to 1 May 2014 and 
from 2 May to 31 October 2014). 
8 By letter of 20 October 2014, the City of Verviers informed J that his 30-month 
contract would end on 31 October 2014 and that it would not be extended. 
9 It justified its decision on the ground that J’s successive employment contracts 
were intended to cover temporary needs, that they were dependent on subsidies 
from the European Social Fund which had also expired, and that he was well 
aware that no security attached to them. 
10 The end of investment from the European Social Fund led to an internal 
reorganisation of the service which saw the team reduced to a single agent, 
namely J. The latter found himself alone in the workplace, with no supervision, 
which, according to the City de Verviers, meant that the service could no longer 
be managed. 
11 J contests the termination of his employment and seeks, in essence, compensation 
in lieu of notice, which was granted to him at first instance by the tribunal de 
travail (Labour Court). 
12 The City of Verviers brought an appeal against that judgment before the cour du 
travail de Liège (Higher Labour Court, Liège). 
II. Provisions in question 
EU law 
Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework 
agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP 
13 Article 1 provides: 
VILLE DE VERVIERS 
 
3 
Anonymised Version  
‘The purpose of the Directive is to put into effect the framework agreement on 
fixed-term contracts concluded on 18 March 1999 between the general cross-
industry organisations (ETUC, UNICE and CEEP) annexed hereto’. 
14 The preamble to the Framework Agreement states, inter alia: 
‘The parties to this agreement recognise that contracts of an indefinite duration 
are, and will continue to be, the general form of employment relationship between 
employers and workers. They also recognise that fixed-term employment 
contracts respond, in certain circumstances, to the needs of both employers and 
workers. 
This agreement sets out the general principles and minimum requirements relating 
to fixed-term work, recognising that their detailed application needs to take 
account of the realities of specific national, sectoral and seasonal situations. It 
illustrates the willingness of the Social Partners to establish a general framework 
for ensuring equal treatment for fixed-term workers by protecting them against 
discrimination and for using fixed-term employment contracts on a basis 
acceptable to employers and workers.’ 
15 The general considerations provide, inter alia: 
‘6. Whereas employment contracts of an indefinite duration are the general 
form of employment relationships and contribute to the quality of life of the 
workers concerned and improve performance; 
7. Whereas the use of fixed-term employment contracts based on objective 
reasons is a way to prevent abuse; 
8. Whereas fixed-term employment contracts are a feature of employment in 
certain sectors, occupations and activities which can suit both employers and 
workers; 
… 
12. Whereas the social partners are best placed to find solutions that correspond 
to the needs of both employers and workers and shall therefore be given a special 
role in the implementation and application of this agreement.’ 
16 Clause 1 provides: 
‘Purpose  
The purpose of this framework agreement is to: 
(a)  improve the quality of fixed-term work by ensuring the application of the 
principle of non-discrimination; 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-483/19 
 
4  
Anonymised Version 
(b) establish a framework to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive 
fixed-term employment contracts or relationships’. 
17 Clause 2 states: 
‘Scope  
1. This agreement applies to fixed-term workers who have an employment 
contract or employment relationship as defined in law, collective agreements or 
practice in each Member State. 
2. Member States after consultation with the social partners and/or the social 
partners may provide that this agreement does not apply to: 
(a)  initial vocational training relationships and apprenticeship schemes; 
(b)  employment contracts and relationships which have been concluded within 
the framework of a specific public or publicly-supported training, integration and 
vocational retraining programme’. 
18 Clause 5 provides: 
‘Measures to prevent abuse 
1. To prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment 
contracts or relationships, Member States, after consultation with social partners 
in accordance with national law, collective agreements or practice, and/or the 
social partners, shall, where there are no equivalent legal measures to prevent 
abuse, introduce in a manner which takes account of the needs of specific sectors 
and/or categories of workers, one or more of the following measures: 
(a) objective reasons justifying the renewal of such contracts or relationships; 
(b) the maximum total duration of successive fixed-term employment contracts 
or relationships; 
(c) the number of renewals of such contracts or relationships. 
2. Member States after consultation with the social partners and/or the social 
partners shall, where appropriate, determine under what conditions fixed-term 
employment contracts or relationships: 
(a) shall be regarded as “successive” 
(b) shall be deemed to be contracts or relationships of indefinite duration.’ 
VILLE DE VERVIERS 
 
5 
Anonymised Version  
Belgian law 
Law of 3 July 1978 on employment contracts  
19 Article 10 provides: 
‘Where the parties have entered into several successive fixed-term employment 
contracts without interruption attributable to the worker, they shall be deemed to 
be contracts of indefinite duration, except where the employer establishes that the 
contracts were justified by the nature of the work or other legitimate reasons.’ 
20 Article 10a(1) provides: 
‘By way of derogation from Article 10, successive contracts may be concluded for 
a fixed term, in accordance with the conditions laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 of 
this article’. 
III. Arguments of the parties 
21 J invokes Article 10 of the Law on employment contracts and claims that the use 
of successive fixed-term employment contracts was justified neither by the nature 
of the work or other legitimate reasons. The employment relationship is therefore 
deemed to be of indefinite duration. J seeks, in that regard, compensation in lieu 
of notice. 
22 The City of Verviers submits, in essence, that the use of successive fixed-term 
employment contracts concluded first within the framework of the ‘PTP’ and then 
under the ‘Plan Activa’ scheme was justified by legitimate reasons relating to the 
definite duration of the worker’s subsidised employment under  subsidised 
contract of that type. 
IV. Findings of the cour du travail  
23 The cour du travail observes first of all that the present dispute concerns a worker 
employed under successive fixed-term contracts, the first of which was concluded 
to ensure his vocational training, from 1 to 30 September 2009, and that 
subsequent contracts were intended to facilitate his vocational integration through 
various employment assistance programmes in receipt of public, European and 
regional subsidies. 
24 It then limits the scope of the dispute by stating, first, that the derogations 
provided for in Article 10a of the Law on employment contracts are not applicable 
in the present case, given the period of more than five and half years covering the 
successive fixed-term employment contracts linking the parties and, second, that it 
is common ground that the nature of the work does not justify the use of 
successive fixed-term employment contacts. The cour du travail considers that the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-483/19 
 
6  
Anonymised Version 
dispute focuses on the legitimate reasons invoked by the City de Verviers to 
justify the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts. 
25 The cour du travail examines, in particular, the impact of Directive 1999/70/EC on 
the dispute. 
26 It asks, first of all, what is the scope of the obligations on the State or the Belgian 
legislature to ensure that the directive’s main objectives are guaranteed to 
workers. 
27 In transposing Directive 1999/70/EC into Belgian law, the Belgian Federal 
Minister for Employment obtained the opinion of the Conseil national de travail 
(National Labour Council), the Belgian organisation designed to facilitate 
dialogue on employment relations between employers and employees.  
28 In its Opinion No 1342 of 15 March 2001, the Conseil national de travail applied 
clause 2(2)(a) and (b) of the Framework Agreement to exclude initial vocational 
training relationships and subsidised or assisted employment from the scope of 
that agreement. 
29 That decision was justified by the following statement of reasons: 
‘The Conseil agrees, in the light of the specific characteristics of those contracts, 
to exclude from the field of application, the various forms of vocational 
apprenticeship (apprenticeship for employed workers, apprenticeship for self-
employed workers), training, integration and retraining (graduate labour market, 
interdepartmental budget funds, activation of unemployment benefit, vocational 
training contracts) contracts which exist under Belgian law.’ 
30 It follows that, at first sight, the Framework Agreement does not apply to the 
present dispute. 
31 However, in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice on the 
implementation of that Framework Agreement by the Member States, it is 
legitimate to ask whether, by declaring that the Framework Agreement in question 
does not apply to training, integration and retraining contracts, the Belgian State is 
therefore relieved of any obligations arising under Directive 1999/70/EC with 
regard to successive fixed-term employment contracts if they have been concluded 
for the purposes of training, integration or retraining and are reliant on public 
funding. 
32 The cour du travail refers a first question for a preliminary ruling in that regard. 
33 The cour du travail next examines the ‘legitimate reasons’ that may be invoked by 
the employer in accordance with Article 10 of the Law on employment contracts, 
in particular in the light of Directive 1999/70/EC establishing the Framework 
Agreement. 
VILLE DE VERVIERS 
 
7 
Anonymised Version  
34 It considers that the case-law is very divided on that concept. The concept of 
‘legitimate reasons’ is, moreover, more vague that that of ‘objective reasons’ 
which appears in the Framework Agreement. 
35 The concept of ‘legitimate reasons’ allows the court to examine the 
appropriateness of concluding successive fixed-term employment contracts by an 
employer whose activity depends on public subsidies. 
36 In employment law, it is settled case-law that a court cannot exercise a power of 
review over decisions relation to the management of the undertaking or, as in the 
present case, municipal choices on social policy. The assessment of the legitimacy 
of the reasons given by the employer is therefore of marginal significance. 
37 By contrast, the concept of ‘objective reasons’ set out in clause 5(1)(a) of the 
Framework Agreement calls for an assessment based on a series of objective facts 
capable of justifying the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts, thus 
allowing a court to carry out a more extensive review on rational and concrete 
grounds. 
38 The case-law of the Court of Justice is based on those objective reasons in order to 
strike, on the basis of sectoral specificities, a balance between the interests of 
those looking for employment stability provided by a contract of indefinite 
duration and the interests of those for whom fixed-term employment contracts 
offer flexibility and the conclusion of which, in certain circumstances, is dictated 
by the economic and social context in which certain activities take place. 
39 The major features of that case-law were set out in the judgment of 4 July 2006, 
Adeneler and Others (C-212/04, EU:C:2006:443) in which the Court of Justice 
first of all recalled the wording of recital 7 of the directive ‘the use of fixed-term 
employment contracts founded on objective reasons is ... a way to prevent abuse 
to the disadvantage of workers’ (paragraph 4). It added ‘[a]s this concept of 
“objective reasons” is not defined by the Framework Agreement, its meaning and 
scope must be determined on the basis of the objective pursued by the Framework 
Agreement and of the context of clause 5(1)(a) thereof’ (paragraph 60) and stated 
that ‘the concept of “objective reasons” ... must be understood as referring to 
precise and concrete circumstances characterising a given activity, which are 
therefore capable in that particular context of justifying the use of successive 
fixed-term employment contracts’ (paragraph 69) and that ‘[t]hose circumstances 
may result, in particular, from the specific nature of the tasks for the performance 
of which such contracts have been concluded and from the inherent characteristics 
of those tasks or, as the case may be, from pursuit of a legitimate social-policy 
objective of a Member State’ (paragraph 70). 
40 The Court of Justice also observed that ‘recourse to fixed-term employment 
contracts solely on the basis of a general provision of statute or secondary 
legislation, unlinked to what the activity in question specifically comprises, does 
not permit objective and transparent criteria to be identified in order to verify 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-483/19 
 
8  
Anonymised Version 
whether the renewal of such contracts actually responds to a genuine need, is 
appropriate for achieving the objective pursued and is necessary for that purpose’ 
(paragraph 74) and stated that ‘[o]n the contrary, the concept of “objective 
reasons” within the meaning of that clause requires recourse to this particular type 
of employment relationship, as provided for by national legislation, to be justified 
by the presence of specific factors relating in particular to the activity in question 
and the conditions under which it is carried out’ (paragraph 75). 
41 The Court of Justice has consistently set out objective and transparent criteria 
which may or may not justify recourse to successive fixed-term employment 
contracts in its subsequent case-law. 
42 In the judgment of 23 April 2009, Angelidaki and Others (C-378/07 to C-380/07, 
EU:C:2009:250), the Court of Justice observed that ‘it would be contrary to the 
objective pursued by that clause, which aims to prevent effectively the misuse of 
successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships, if the renewal of 
such contracts or relationships were founded on the provisions of national 
legislation ... when, in reality, the needs covered by those provisions are not in 
fact of a temporary nature but are, on the contrary, “fixed and permanent”’ 
(paragraph 103). 
43 The case which gave rise to that judgment concerned successive fixed-term 
employment contracts entered into by a Greek local authority within the public 
sector responsible for providing services of a social character to the public such as 
‘social care and welfare provided in the home, school janitor services, school 
road-crossing services, ... public information services and social programmes 
financed by the European Union’ (paragraph 31). 
44 The Court of Justice held that ‘it is for all the authorities of the Member State 
concerned to ensure, for matters within the sphere of their competence, that clause 
5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement is complied with by specifically determining 
that the national legislation which permits the renewal in the public sector of 
successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships which have to meet 
temporary needs is not, in fact, being used to meet fixed and permanent needs’ 
(paragraph 106). 
45 Likewise, concerning the management of public hospitals in Madrid, the Court of 
Justice recalled its case-law in the judgment of 14 September 2016, Pérez López 
(C-16/15, EU:C:2016:679), once again highlighting the balance to be struck 
between, on the one hand, the need for employment stability and, on the other, the 
need, imposed by objective circumstances, to have recourse to successive fixed-
term employment contracts. Paragraphs 38 and 39 of that judgment are worded as 
follows: 
‘38 As regards the existence of an “objective ground”, it follows from the case-
law that that concept must be understood as referring to precise and concrete 
circumstances characterising a given activity, which are therefore capable, in that 
VILLE DE VERVIERS 
 
9 
Anonymised Version  
particular context, of justifying the use of successive fixed-term employment 
contracts. Those circumstances may result, in particular, from the specific nature 
of the tasks for the performance of which such contracts have been concluded and 
from the inherent characteristics of those tasks or, as the case may be, from pursuit 
of a legitimate social policy objective of a Member State. 
39 On the other hand, a national provision which merely authorises recourse to 
successive fixed-term contracts, in a general and abstract manner, by a rule of 
statute or secondary legislation, does not accord with the requirements stated in 
the previous paragraph of the present judgment’. 
46 In the present case, social policy objectives funded by public subsidies are put 
forward to justify concluding successive fixed-term employment contracts — over 
a period of more than five and a half years — between the City of Verviers and 
the interested party for the performance of administrative tasks within the 
framework of a public service which responds, in actual fact, to permanent needs 
of the population. 
V. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
47 Against that background, the cour du travail decided to refer the following three 
questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
1. Does the fact that the social partners, by means of the Opinion No 1342… of 
the Conseil national de travail, decided to make use of the option to exclude from 
the scope of the Framework Agreement in question, referred to in clause 2(2)(a) 
and (b) thereof, absolve the Belgian legislature from taking, with regard to 
employment contracts which have been concluded within the framework of a 
specific public or publicly-supported training, integration and vocational 
retraining programme, specific, objective and concrete measures to ensure that the 
Framework Agreement’s objectives are guaranteed to workers engaged in 
subsidised employment? 
2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, that is to say the Belgian 
State is not relieved of its obligations under Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 
June on fixed-term work, does clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement 
preclude a provision of national law which, like Article 10 of the Law of 3 July 
1978 on employment contracts, authorises having recourse to successive fixed-
term employment contracts in breach of the strict conditions relating to maximum 
duration and renewal laid down by Article 10a of that law, provided that the 
public employer establishes ‘legitimate reasons’ not otherwise specified in that 
law which justify the use of unlimited successive fixed-term employment 
contracts? 
3. Again, if the answer to the first question is in the negative, does clause 
5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement impose the obligation, on the national court 
hearing a case between a public employer and a worker employed under 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-483/19 
 
10  
Anonymised Version 
successive fixed-term employment contracts concluded within the framework of 
various training, integration and retraining programmes, to examine the 
appropriateness of concluding successive fixed-term employment contracts in the 
light of the ‘objective reasons’ set out in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union? 
In such a case, can the ‘legitimate reasons’ put forward by the public employer be 
considered to be ‘objective reasons’ justifying the use of successive fixed-term 
employment contracts in breach of the conditions laid down by Article 10a, cited 
above, in order, on the one hand, to prevent and tackle abuse arising from the use 
of successive fixed-term employment contracts where the needs covered by those 
contracts are not of a temporary nature but are rather fixed and permanent needs in 
terms of social cohesion within an insecure population and, on the other, to take 
account of the specific objectives of those vocational reinsertion contracts 
concluded within the framework of that social employment policy established by 
the Belgian State and the Walloon Region and which is heavily dependent on 
public subsidies?