CELEX: 62019CA0644
Language: en
Date: 2020-10-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-644/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — FT v Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, GS and Others, HS, Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Articles 1, 2 and 3 — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Measure taken by a university pursuant to national law — Retention of tenured lecturer status beyond the statutory retirement age — Possibility restricted to lecturers with doctoral supervisor status — Lecturers who do not have this status — Fixed-term employment contracts — Lower remuneration than for tenured lecturers)

30.11.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 414/14
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — FT v Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, GS and Others, HS, Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale
      (Case C-644/19) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 1, 2 and 3 - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Measure taken by a university pursuant to national law - Retention of tenured lecturer status beyond the statutory retirement age - Possibility restricted to lecturers with doctoral supervisor status - Lecturers who do not have this status - Fixed-term employment contracts - Lower remuneration than for tenured lecturers)
      (2020/C 414/17)
      Language of the case: Romanian
      
         Referring court
      
      Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: FT
      
         Defendants: Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, GS and Others, HS, Ministerul Educaţiei Naţionale
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not being applicable to national legislation under which, among members of the teaching staff of a university continuing to work there after reaching the statutory retirement age, only lecturers with doctoral supervisor status may retain their status as tenured lecturers, while lecturers without doctoral supervisor status may conclude only fixed-term employment contracts with that establishment, which include a system of lower remuneration than that for tenured lecturers.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, 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 the application of national legislation under which, among members of the teaching staff of a university who continue to work there after reaching the statutory retirement age, only lecturers with doctoral supervisor status may retain their status as tenured lecturers, while lecturers without doctoral supervisor status may conclude only fixed-term employment contracts with that establishment, which include a system of lower remuneration than that for tenured lecturers, to the extent that the first category of lecturer is composed of permanent workers comparable to the workers in the second category, and that the difference in treatment arising, in particular, from the system of remuneration in question is not justified by an objective reason, which it is for the referring court to determine.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.