Pedro Viejobueno Ibáñez and Emilia de la Vara González v Consejería de Educación de Castilla-La Mancha.
Date: 2018-11-21
34


According to Clause 1(a) of the Framework Agreement, one of the objectives of that agreement is to improve the quality of fixed-term work by ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination. Similarly, the third paragraph in the Preamble to the Framework Agreement states that it ‘illustrates the willingness of the Social Partners to establish a general framework for ensuring equal treatment for fixed-term workers by protecting them against discrimination’. Recital 14 of Directive 1999/70 states, to this end, that the aim of the Framework Agreement is, in particular, to improve the quality of fixed-term work by setting out minimum requirements in order to ensure the application of the principle of non-discrimination (judgment of 5 June 2018, Montero Mateos, C‑677/16, EU:C:2018:393, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).
35


The Framework Agreement, in particular Clause 4 thereof, seeks to apply the principle of non-discrimination to fixed-term workers in order to prevent an employer using such an employment relationship to deny those workers rights which are recognised for permanent workers (judgment of 5 June 2018, Montero Mateos, C‑677/16, EU:C:2018:393, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
36


However, the Framework Agreement does not specify the conditions under which employment contracts of indefinite duration may be used, nor does it specify those under which fixed-term contracts may be used (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 October 2012, Valenza and Others, C‑302/11 to C‑305/11, EU:C:2012:646, paragraph 63, and of 14 September 2016, Martínez Andrés and Castrejana LópezC‑184/15 and C‑197/15, EU:C:2016:680, paragraph 39).
38


It should be borne in mind that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, in order to assess whether the persons concerned are engaged in the same or similar work for the purposes of the Framework Agreement, it must be determined, in accordance with Clause 3(2) and Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement, whether, in the light of a number of factors such as the nature of the work, training requirements and working conditions, those persons can be regarded as being in a comparable situation (judgment of 5 June 2018, Montero Mateos, C‑677/16, EU:C:2018:393, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited).
44


Fixed-term employment relationships, such as those of the persons concerned, are, by contrast, as follows from Clause 3(1) of the Framework Agreement, characterised by the fact that the employer and the worker agree, at the point those relationships begin, that they will end upon the occurrence of objectively determined conditions, such as the completion of a specific task, the occurrence of a specific event or a specific date being reached (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 June 2018, Grupo Norte Facility, C‑574/16, EU:C:2018:390, paragraph 57, and Montero Mateos, C‑677/16, EU:C:2018:393, paragraph 60).
50


In this regard, it should be noted that the persons concerned are not asking, as regards the duration of their employment relationship, that they in fact be treated in the same way as their colleagues who are established civil servants, as the latter will remain in their posts even after 14 September 2012. Their requests amount, in reality, to claiming that they should be treated in the same way as teachers who were employed as interim civil servants in previous academic years, until 14 September.
51


The principle of non-discrimination has been implemented and specifically applied by the Framework Agreement solely as regards differences in treatment as between fixed-term workers and permanent workers in a comparable situation (judgment of 5 June 2018, Montero Mateos, C‑677/16, EU:C:2018:393, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited). Consequently, any differences in treatment between specific categories of fixed-term staff are not covered by the principle of non-discrimination established by the Framework Agreement (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 September 2016, de Diego Porras, C‑596/14, EU:C:2016:683, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).
56


In this respect, it should be recalled that workers must normally be entitled to actual rest, with a view to ensuring effective protection of their health and safety. It is thus only where the employment relationship is terminated that Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88 permits an allowance to be paid in lieu of paid annual leave which has not been taken (judgment of 20 January 2009, Schultz-Hoff and Others, C‑350/06 and C‑520/06, EU:C:2009:18, paragraph 23, and order of 21 February 2013, Maestre García, C‑194/12, EU:C:2013:102, paragraph 28).