Case C-680/25, Tribunalul Suceava, Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureș (Romania) lodged on 23 October 2025 – A.J. v Tribunalul Suceava, Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție
Date: 2025-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal pay, equal treatment, full-time employment, primacy of EU law, public service, remuneration of work, seniority, temporary employment








C_202600630EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/630


9.2.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Mureș (Romania) lodged on 23 October 2025 – A.J. v Tribunalul Suceava, Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție


(Case C-680/25, Tribunalul Suceava, Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție)

(C/2026/630)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Mureș

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A.J.

Defendants: Tribunalul Suceava, Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Questions referred







1.


Is the referring court, being responsible for the primary application of the provisions of Directive 1999/70/EC (1) and the framework agreement, required to ensure the full application of those rules and should that court, of its own motion, disapply any conflicting provision of national law, even if such provisions are enacted subsequently, without seeking or awaiting a prior repeal by legislative or any other means?










2.


Should the concept of ‘employment conditions’ referred to in Clause 4(1) 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) be interpreted as meaning that it can serve as a basis for a claim such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which seeks to obtain, for a fixed-term worker, a salary entitlement (bonus or salary allowance) based on length of service, a right reserved by national legislation for permanent workers?










3.


Should Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work (annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC) be interpreted as precluding the introduction of a difference in treatment (with regard to the granting of a salary entitlement based on length of service) between fixed-term workers and permanent workers, justified solely by the fact that such a difference is provided for by a national law of a Member State?










4.


Are national courts, on the basis of Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work (annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC), required to safeguard the individual rights of fixed-term workers, especially in cases of discrimination arising directly from national legislation and in cases of unequal pay for such workers compared to permanent workers, particularly when [the unequal pay in question] occurs within the same public department?






(1)  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).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/630/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)