Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

201807270302024642018/C 285/302742018CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO\_JUDICIAL20180423161723

Case C-274/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 23 April 2018 — Minoo Schuch-Ghannadan v Medizinische Universität Wien

[Top](#document1)

C2852018EN1630120180423EN0030163172

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 23 April 2018 — Minoo Schuch-Ghannadan v Medizinische Universität Wien

(Case C-274/18)

2018/C 285/30Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minoo Schuch-Ghannadan

Defendant: Medizinische Universität Wien

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the principle of pro rata temporis under point 2 of clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 ( [1](#t-C_2018285EN.01001603-E0001) ) concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work, in conjunction with the principle of non-discrimination under point 1 of clause 4, to be applied to legislation under which the total duration of immediately consecutive employment contracts of an employee of an Austrian university working within the framework of externally funded projects or research projects is 6 years for full-time employees, but 8 years for part-time employees, and moreover, if there is objective justification, in particular for the continuation or completion of research projects or publications, a further one-off extension up to a total of 10 years for full-time employees and of 12 years for part-time employees is permissible? |

| 2. | Does legislation such as that described in Question 1 constitute indirect discrimination based on sex within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) in the case where, within the group of workers subject to that legislation, a significantly higher percentage of women is affected as compared with the percentage of men so affected? |

| 3. | Is Article 19(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 ( [2](#t-C_2018285EN.01001603-E0002) ) on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) to be interpreted as meaning that a woman who, in the area of application of legislation such as that set out in Question 1, claims to have suffered indirect discrimination based on sex on the ground that significantly more women than men are employed on a part-time basis, must assert this fact, in particular that women are statistically much more significantly affected, by submitting specific statistics or specific facts and must substantiate this by means of appropriate evidence? |

---

(
[1](#c-C_2018285EN.01001603-E0001)
) [OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:L:1998:014:TOC).

(
[2](#c-C_2018285EN.01001603-E0002)
) [OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:L:2006:204:TOC).

[Top](#document2)