Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:390
Date: 2018-06-05
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: Social Policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Spain

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 5 June 2018 1. Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Employment conditions — Definition — Compensation paid to a worker on account of the termination of his employment contract — Included (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clause 4(1)) 2. Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Objective reasons justifying a difference in treatment — Definition — Compensation in the event of termination of a permanent employment contract on objective grounds — Lesser amount of compensation paid on expiry of a fixed-term ‘relief’ employment contract — Lawfulness (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clauses 3(1) and 4(1)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 41-45) 2. Clause 4(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 not precluding national legislation under which the compensation paid to workers employed under fixed-term contracts entered into in order to cover working hours no longer covered as a result of a worker taking partial retirement, such as the relief contract at issue in the main proceedings, on expiry of the term for which those contracts were concluded, is less than the compensation awarded to permanent workers on termination of their employment contract on objective grounds. Indeed, it follows from the definition of ‘fixed-term contract’ in Clause 3(1) of the Framework Agreement that a contract of that kind ceases to have any future effect on expiry of the term stipulated in the contract, that term being identified as the completion of a specific task, the occurrence of a specific event or, as in the present case, a specific date being reached. Thus, the parties to a fixed-term employment contract are aware, from the moment of its conclusion, of the date or event which determines its end. That term limits the duration of the employment relationship without the parties having to make their intentions known in that regard after entering into the contract. By contrast, the termination of a permanent employment contract on one of the grounds set out in Article 52 of the Workers’ Statute, on the initiative of the employer, is the result of circumstances arising which were not foreseen at the date that contract was entered into and which disrupt the normal continuation of the employment relationship. As is clear from the Spanish Government’s explanations set out in paragraph 55 of the present judgment and as the Advocate General noted, in essence, in point 60 of her Opinion, it is precisely in order to compensate for the unforeseen nature of the termination of the employment relationship for such a reason and, accordingly, the frustration of any legitimate expectations the worker may have had at that date as regards the stability of that relationship, that Article 53(1)(b) of the Workers’ Statute requires compensation equivalent to twenty days’ remuneration per year of service to be paid to the dismissed worker. In the latter case, Spanish law does not treat fixed-term workers and comparable permanent workers differently, since Article 53(1)(b) of the Workers’ Statute provides for statutory compensation equivalent to twenty days’ remuneration per year of service with the employer to be paid to a worker, irrespective of whether their employment contract is for a fixed term or for an indefinite duration. In those circumstances, it must be held that the fact that the respective compensation amounts provided for in Articles 49(1)(c) and 53(1)(b) of the Workers’ Statute, which are paid in fundamentally different contexts, have different purposes constitutes an objective reason justifying the different treatment at issue. (see paras 57-61, operative part)