CELEX: 62010CN0020
Language: en
Date: 2010-01-13 00:00:00
Title: Case C-20/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani (Italy) lodged on 13 January 2010 — Vino Cosimo Damiano v Poste Italiane SpA

22.5.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 134/15
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani (Italy) lodged on 13 January 2010 — Vino Cosimo Damiano v Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-20/10)
   2010/C 134/24
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Referring court
   
   Tribunale di Trani
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Vino Cosimo Damiano
   
      Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Does Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1999/70/EC (1) preclude domestic rules (such as that laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case for the engagement of workers by Poste Italiane SpA on fixed-term contracts?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               In order to justify a reformatio in pejus of the previous rules on fixed-term contracts and to preclude the operation of the prohibition laid down in Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1999/70/EC, is it sufficient for the national legislature to pursue any objective, provided that it is an objective other than that of implementing that directive, or is it necessary for such an objective not only to merit at least equal protection to the objective in respect of which penalties are imposed but also for it to be expressly ‘stated’?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Does Clause 3(1) of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1999/70/EC preclude domestic rules (such as those laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case for the engagement of workers by Poste Italiane SpA on fixed-term contracts?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Does the general Community principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment preclude domestic rules (such as that laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case which places employees of Poste Italiane SpA at a disadvantage not only vis-à-vis that company but also other undertakings in the same sector or in other sectors?
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Do Article 82 [EC], first paragraph, and Article 86(1) and (2) [EC] preclude domestic rules (such as those laid down in Article 2(1)a of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, introduced into domestic law an ‘acausal’ case which benefits only Poste Italiane SpA (an entirely publicly owned entity), giving rise to potential abuse of a dominant position?
            
         
               6.
            
            
               If the answer to the foregoing questions is in the affirmative, is the national court required to disapply (or not to apply) the national rules which are contrary to Community law?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.