Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 –

Bertazzi and Others

(Case C‑152/14) 1 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Stabilisation procedure — Recruitment of workers employed for a fixed term as career civil servants without a public competition — Determination of length of service — Complete disregard of periods of service completed under fixed-term employment contracts — Principle of non-discrimination’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions identical to those already ruled on in the case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see para. 9)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Examination of the compatibility of national law with EU law — Not included (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 13)

3. Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Directive 1999/70 — Prohibition on discriminating against fixed‑term workers — Worker employed for a fixed term recruited as a career civil servant without a public competition — Failure to take account, in order to determine length of service, of periods of service completed under a fixed-term contract — Not permissible (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 4, paras 1 and 4) (see paras 14, 16, 17, operative part)

4. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — General or hypothetical questions — Determination by the Court of its own jurisdiction (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 15)

Operative part

Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work, concluded on 18 March 1999 and 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 a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which completely excludes periods of service completed by a fixed-term worker for a public authority from being taken into account in order to determine the length of service of that worker upon his recruitment on a permanent basis by that same authority as a career civil servant under a stabilisation procedure specific to his employment relationship, where the duties performed under fixed-term contracts are the same as those performed by a career civil servant in the same category for that authority, unless that exclusion is justified on ‘objective grounds’ for the purposes of clause 4(1) and/or (4), this being a matter for the referring court to determine. The mere fact that the fixed-term worker completed those periods of service on the basis of an employment relationship or contract for a fixed term does not constitute such an objective ground.

The objective of preventing reverse discrimination against career civil servants recruited after passing a general competition cannot constitute an ‘objective ground’ for the purposes of clause 4(1) and/or (4) of the framework agreement where, as in the case in the main proceedings, the provision of national law at issue completely and in all circumstances excludes all periods of service completed by workers under fixed-term employment contracts from being taken into account in order to determine the length of service of those workers upon their recruitment on a permanent basis and, thus, their level of remuneration.

( 1 ) OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.