Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2010:369
Date: 2010-06-24
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Social Policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 1. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 8(3)) 2. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 (Art. 288(3) TFEU; Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 8(3)) 1. Clause 8(3) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 contained in the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as not precluding domestic legislation that has abolished the requirement for the employer to indicate in fixed-term contracts concluded for the purpose of replacing absent workers the names of those workers and the reasons for their replacement, and that merely provides that such fixed-term contracts must be in writing and must indicate the reasons for the use of those contracts, in so far as those new conditions are offset by the adoption of other safeguards or protective measures or concern only a limited category of workers having entered into a fixed-term employment contract, which it is for the national court to ascertain. In so far as the latter workers do not represent a significant proportion of workers employed for a fixed term in the Member State concerned, which it is for the national court to ascertain, the reduction in the protection afforded to that limited category of workers is not, in itself, likely to have an effect overall on the level of protection applicable under the domestic legal order to workers bound by fixed-term employment contracts. What is more, the amendment of the domestic legislation at issue in the main proceedings must be assessed having regard to all the other safeguards it provides in order to protect workers employed under fixed-term contracts, such as measures to prevent the wrongful use of successive fixed-term contracts or those designed to prohibit discrimination against workers having concluded such contracts. (see paras 44, 46, 48, operative part 1) 2. Because clause 8(3) of the framework agreement has no direct effect, it is for the national court, if it should be led to conclude that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is incompatible with European Union law, not to disapply it but, so far as possible, to give it an interpretation in conformity with Directive 1999/70 and with the objective pursued by the framework agreement. The principle of giving an interpretation in conformity with Union law means that domestic law must be interpreted, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the relevant directive, in order to achieve the objective pursued by the directive, by selecting an interpretation of the national legal provisions that best corresponds to that objective and consequently reaching a solution compatible with the provisions of that directive. (see paras 53, 55, operative part 2)