Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:146
Date: 2014-03-13
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Social Policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 13 March 2014 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer — Questions bearing no relation to the subject matter of the case in the main proceedings (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Scope — Fixed-term employment contract in the public sector — Worker employed for a fixed term recruited as an associate lecturer — Included (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clauses 2(1) and 3(1)) 3. Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term contracts — Objective reasons liable to justify the renewal of such contracts — Application to successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector — National rules allowing universities to renew successive fixed-term employment contracts entered into with associate lecturers — No limitation as to the maximum duration and the number of renewals of those contracts — Whether permissible — Conditions — Renewal of those contracts intended to cover temporary needs and appearing to be capable of achieving the legitimate social policy objective pursued — Determination by the national court (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 5) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 35) 2. It is apparent from the very wording of clause 2(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, that the scope of the Framework Agreement is conceived in broad terms, covering generally ‘fixed-term workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined in law, collective agreements or practices in each Member State’. In addition, the definition of fixed-term workers for the purposes of the Framework Agreement, set out in clause 3(1), encompasses all workers without drawing a distinction according to whether their employer is in the public or private sector. It follows that a worker such as an associate lecturer of a university, whose employment contract, according to the provisions of national law, must necessarily have been entered into for a fixed period, falls within the scope of the Framework Agreement. (see paras 38, 39) 3. Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding national rules which allow universities to renew successive fixed-term employment contracts concluded with associate lecturers, with no limitation as to the maximum duration and the number of renewals of those contracts, where such contracts are justified by an objective reason within the meaning of clause 5(1)(a), which is a matter for the referring court to verify. However, it is also for that court to ascertain that the renewal of those employment contracts was actually intended to cover temporary needs and that the aforementioned national rules were not, in fact, used to meet fixed and permanent needs in terms of employment of teaching staff. Subject to the verifications which it is for the referring court to carry out, since that court has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret national law, it appears that those rules lay down, in accordance with clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement, the precise and concrete circumstances in which fixed-term employment contracts may be concluded or renewed for the purpose of the employment of associate lecturers and that they respond to a genuine need. In addition, such temporary contracts appear to be capable of achieving the legitimate social policy objective pursued, consisting in enriching university teaching in specific areas by the experience of recognised specialists, because those contracts allow the development both of the competences of the persons concerned in the areas concerned and of the needs of the universities to be taken into account. (see paras 45, 49, 50, 60, operative part)