62010CO0020_EN
Subject of the case
Operative part
Subject of the case
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale di Trani – Interpretation of Clauses 3 and 8(3) of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) – Compatibility of an internal rule validating in the internal legal order a clause not stating the reason for the engagement on fixed-term contracts of workers by Poste Italiane SpA.
Operative part
Operative part:
1. Clause 8(3) 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, such as that provided for by Article 2(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 368 implementing Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed‑term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP of 6 September 2001 (decreto legislativo n. 368, attuazione della direttiva 1999/70 relativa all’accordo quadro sul lavoro a tempo determinato concluso dall’UNICE, dal CEEP e dal CES), which, unlike the statutory rules applicable before that decree entered into force, allows a company such as Poste Italiane SpA to conclude, subject to observance of certain conditions, a first or single use of a fixed-term contract with a worker, such as Mr Vino, without having to state the objective reasons that justify the use of a contract concluded for such a duration, for that legislation is not connected to the implementation of the framework agreement. It is, in that regard, irrelevant whether the objective pursued by that legislation provides protection at least equivalent to the protection of fixed-term workers referred to in the framework agreement.
2. The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the fourth question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal di Trani (Italy).
3. The fifth question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal di Trani is manifestly inadmissible.