CELEX: 62019CN0948
Language: en
Date: 2019-12-31 00:00:00
Title: Case C-948/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 31 December 2019 — UAB ‘Manpower Lit’ v E.S., M.L., M.P., V.V. and R.V.

9.3.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 77/32
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 31 December 2019 — UAB ‘Manpower Lit’ v E.S., M.L., M.P., V.V. and R.V.
      (Case C-948/19)
      (2020/C 77/43)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian
      
         Referring court
      
      Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellant on a point of law: UAB ‘Manpower Lit’
      
         Other parties to the proceedings: E.S., M.L., M.P., V.V. and R.V.
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  What content should be the given to the term ‘public undertaking’ in Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/104? (1) Are European Union agencies such as EIGE to be regarded as ‘public undertakings’ within the meaning of Directive 2008/104?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Which entities (temporary-work agency, user undertaking, at least one of them, or possibly both) are subject, according to Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/104, to the criterion of being engaged in economic activities? Are the areas of activity and functions of EIGE, as defined in Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1922/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006, (2) to be regarded as economic activities as that term is defined (understood) within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/104?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Can Article 1(2) and (3) of Directive 2008/104 be interpreted as being capable of excluding from the application of the Directive those public and private temporary-work agencies or user undertakings which are not involved in the relations referred to in Article 1(3) of the Directive and are not engaged in the economic activities mentioned in Article 1(2) of the Directive?
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Should the provisions of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/104 concerning the rights of temporary agency workers to basic working and employment conditions, in particular as regards pay, apply in full to European Union agencies, which are subject to special EU labour-law rules and to Articles 335 and 336 TFEU?
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Does the law of a Member State (Article 75 of the Lithuanian Labour Code) transposing the provisions of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/104 for all undertakings using temporary workers (including EU institutions) infringe the principle of administrative autonomy of an EU institution established in Articles 335 and 336 TFEU, and the rules governing the calculation and payment of wages laid down in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union?
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  In view of the fact that all posts (job functions) to which workers are directly recruited by EIGE include tasks which can be performed exclusively by those workers who work under the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, can the respective posts (job functions) of temporary agency workers be regarded as being ‘the same job[s]’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/104?
               
            
         (1)  Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 9).
      
         (2)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 9.