Case C-236/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per l’Emilia Romagna — Italy) — PG v Ministero della Giustizia, CSM — Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 2 and 4 — Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Magistrates and ordinary judges — Clause 5 — Measures intended to penalise improper use of fixed-term contracts — Directive 2003/88/EC — Article 7 — Paid annual leave)
Date: 2022-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, judge, magistrate, paid leave, part-time employment, social security, temporary employment, work contract








C_2022213EN.01000701.xml










30.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/7






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per l’Emilia Romagna — Italy) — PG v Ministero della Giustizia, CSM — Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
(Case C-236/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 2 and 4 - Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Magistrates and ordinary judges - Clause 5 - Measures intended to penalise improper use of fixed-term contracts - Directive 2003/88/EC - Article 7 - Paid annual leave)
(2022/C 213/07)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per l’Emilia Romagna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: PG

Defendants: Ministero della Giustizia, CSM — Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Intervening parties: Unione Nazionale Giudici di Pace (Unagipa), TR, PV, Associazione Nazionale Giudici di Pace — ANGDP, RF, GA, GOT Non Possiamo Più Tacere, Unione Nazionale Italiana Magistrati Onorari — UNIMO

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, Clause 4 of the framework agreement on part-time work, concluded on 6 June 1997 and which is annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998, and Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 and 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 which does not provide for an entitlement for magistrates to 30 days’ paid annual leave or to a social security and pension scheme deriving from the employment relationship, such as that provided for ordinary judges, if that magistrate comes within the definition of ‘part-time worker’ within the meaning of the framework agreement on part-time work and/or ‘fixed-term worker’ within the meaning of the framework agreement on fixed-term work and is in a comparable situation to that of an ordinary judge;










2.


Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which a fixed-term employment relationship can be renewed a maximum of three times successively, each renewal being for a duration of four years, for a total duration that does not exceed 16 years, and which does not provide for the possibility of penalising in an effective and dissuasive way the abusive continuance of the employment relationship.






(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.