Case C-144/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht München, by judgment of that court of 26 February 2004 in the case of Werner Mangold against Rüdiger Helm
Date: 2004-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, framework agreement, interpretation of the law, population of working age, temporary employment, working time

29.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht
München, by judgment of that court of 26 February 2004
in the case of Werner Mangold against Rüdiger Helm

ment contracts may be concluded, without any objective
reason, with workers aged 52 and over, thus running counter
to the principle of justification on objective grounds?
3.

(Case C-144/04)

(2004/C 146/01)

If one of those three questions is answered in the affirmative:
the national court refuse to apply the provision of
Must
national law which conflicts with Community law and, in that
case, does the general principle laid down in national
law
apply, under which fixed terms of employment are permissible
only if they are justified on an objective ground?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by the Arbeitsgericht München, of 26
February 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on
17 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Werner
Mangold against Rüdiger Helm on the following questions:

(1) OJ L 175, p. 43.
(2) OJ L 303, p. 16.

1(a)

Is Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement (Council Directive
1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework
agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and
CEEP) to be interpreted as prohibiting,
in the course of the
implementation of that agreement in national law, any reduced
protection as a result of a reduction in the age limit from 60 to
58?
1(b)

Action brought on 31 March 2004 by the Republic of
Finland against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case C-162/04)

(2004/C 146/02)

Is Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement (Council Directive
1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agree-
ment on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and
CEEP) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national
law which – like the provision at issue in this case – does not
contain any of the three restrictions set out in paragraph 1 of
that clause?
2.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 31 March 2004 by the Republic of Finland,
represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Republic of Finland claims principally that
should:

the Court

Is Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (2) of 27
November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal
treatment in employment and occupation to be interpreted as
precluding a provision of national
law under which – like
under the provision at issue in this case – fixed-term employ-

i) annul Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February
2004 excluding from Community financing certain expen-
diture incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guar-
antee Fund (EAGGF) (1) in so far as it concerns Finland;