Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2022 – Elliniko Dimosio (Cleaning staff in schools)
(Case C‑133/21)(1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Clause 4 – Principle of non-discrimination – Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector – National legislation establishing a difference in treatment as regards remuneration between workers employed under fixed-term contracts for the supply of services and those employed under contracts of indefinite duration – No justification – Concept of ‘objective reasons’)
1.      Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Concept of ‘fixed-term worker’ – Workers employed under fixed-term contracts for the supply of services to clean schools – Included
(Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clauses 2(1) and (2), 3(1) and 4(1))
(see paras 39-44)
2.      Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Conditions of employment – Concept – Conditions relating to remuneration – Included
(Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clause 4(1))
(see para. 45)
3.      Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Prohibition on discrimination against fixed-term workers – National legislation establishing a difference in treatment as regards remuneration between workers employed under fixed-term contracts for the supply of services and those employed under contracts of indefinite duration – No objective grounds – Not permissible
(Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clause 4(1))
(see paras 60-63, operative part)
Operative part
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 precluding national legislation under which a fixed-term worker, whose contracts is classified as a contract for the supply of services, is not entitled to receive remuneration equivalent to that paid to a permanent worker on the ground that that worker carried out his or her work under a fixed-term contract in the knowledge that that contract sought to meet permanent and long-lasting needs of his or her employer.
1 OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.