You are on page 1of 2

9.10.

2010 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/3

Parties to the main proceedings Questions referred


Applicant: Gebhard Stark
Question 1
(a) When conducting a legal assessment as to whether an
agreement for the renewal of a fixed-term contract is
justified in a particular case for objective reasons within
Defendant: D.A.S. Österreichische Allgemeine Rechtsschutzver­ the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework
sicherung AG agreement on fixed-term work in the Annex to Council
Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, (1) is it compatible
with the spirit and purpose of Clause 5(1) of the framework
agreement to have reference only to circumstances
obtaining at the date of conclusion of that renewal
agreement without having regard to how many fixed-term
Question referred contracts have already preceded that agreement, or
Is Article 4(1) of Directive 87/344/EEC (1) to be interpreted as
precluding a provision such as Paragraph 158k(2) of the
Versicherungsvertragsgesetz (Law on insurance contracts) and
a clause, based on that law, contained in the general conditions
of insurance applied by a legal expenses insurer to the effect (b) Does the spirit and purpose of Clause 5(1)(a) of the
that it may be stipulated in the insurance contract that the framework agreement, which is to prevent abuse arising
insured person may select to represent him only persons profes­ from the use of consecutive short-term employment
sionally authorised to represent parties who have their chambers contracts, necessitate the imposition of stricter requirements
at the place of the court or administrative authority before in relation to ‘objective reasons’ the greater the number of
which the proceedings at first instance are to be conducted? successive fixed-term employment contracts that have
already preceded the one that is to be assessed or the
longer the period during which the employee concerned
has already been employed under successive fixed-term
contracts?

(1) Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination


of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal
expenses insurance (OJ 1987, L 185, p. 77).

Question 2
Does Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term
work preclude the application of a provision of national law
such as Paragraph 14(1)(7) of the Law on part-time working
and fixed-term contracts (Gesetz über Teilzeitarbeit und
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the befristete Arbeitsverträge, ‘the TzBfG’) which justifies successive
Landesarbeitsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 29 June fixed terms of employment contracts in the public sector alone
2010 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Melanie Klintz for the ‘objective reason’ that the employee is paid out of
budgetary funds provided for fixed-term employment, whereas
in the case of employers in the private sector such economic
(Case C-312/10) reasons are not recognised as ‘objective reasons’?

(2010/C 274/04)

Language of the case: German

Question 3
Referring court
(a) Is the provision on fixed-term contracts referred to in the
Landesarbeitsgericht Köln second question (Paragraph 14(1)(7) TzBfG) compatible
with the framework agreement if the budgetary rule to
which Paragraph 14(1)(7) TzBfG refers constitutes a
sufficiently specific purpose for the fixed term with a
particular connection to the activity in question and the
conditions under which it is carried out (see second
Parties to the main proceedings paragraph of the summary of the judgment in Case
Applicant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen C-212/04 Adeneler [2006] ECR I 6057)?

Defendant: Melanie Klintz If Question 3(a) is answered in the affirmative:


C 274/4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 9.10.2010

(b) Is there such a sufficiently specific purpose if the budgetary small pockets of the public sector (higher education)? Does such
rule, such as Paragraph 7(3) of the Gesetz über die Fest­ a breach mean that the national rule can no longer be applied?
stellung der Haushaltspläne des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen
(Law determining the budget of the Land of North-Rhine
Westphalia, ‘HG 2004/2005’) in this case, merely provides
that the budgetary funds are intended for a fixed-term (1) OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.
activity as ‘temporary staff’?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the


If Question 3(b) is answered in the affirmative:
Landesarbeitsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 29 June
2010 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Sylvia Jansen

(Case C-313/10)

(2010/C 274/05)
(c) Does this apply even if the activity of ‘temporary staff’ in
this sense is understood to mean not only an activity that
serves to cover either a temporary increase in work or the Language of the case: German
temporary loss of a core member of staff but also where the
term ‘temporary staff’ is also deemed applicable if the
Referring court
employee is paid out of budgetary funds that are available
because of the temporary loss of a core member of staff Landesarbeitsgericht Köln
working in the same department, although the ‘temporary
staff’ member is employed to do work that is categorised as
falling within the ambit of the employer’s fixed and
permanent needs and has no substantive connection with Parties to the main proceedings
the activity of the core member of staff lost, or
Applicant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Defendant: Sylvia Jansen

(d) Does interpretation of the term ‘temporary staff’ in the


manner described in Question 3(c) run counter to the
spirit and purpose of the framework agreement on fixed- Questions referred
term work, which is to prevent abuse arising from the use
of consecutive short-term employment contracts, and to the Question 1
principle, laid down in Angelidaki (second paragraph of the
summary of the judgment in Joined Cases C-378/07 to C- (a) When conducting a legal assessment as to whether an
380/07 [2009] ECR I-3071), that Clause 5(1)(a) of the agreement for the renewal of a fixed-term contract is
framework agreement on fixed-term work precludes the justified in a particular case for objective reasons within
application of national legislation ‘in such a way that the the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework
renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts in the agreement on fixed-term work in the Annex to Council
public sector is deemed to be justified by objective reasons Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, is it compatible
within the meaning of that clause solely on the ground that with the spirit and purpose of Clause 5(1) of the
those contracts are founded on legal provisions allowing them to framework agreement to have reference only to circum­
be renewed in order to meet certain temporary needs when, in fact, stances obtaining at the date of conclusion of that
those needs are fixed and permanent’? renewal agreement without having regard to how many
fixed-term contracts have already preceded that agreement,
or

(b) Does the spirit and purpose of Clause 5(1)(a) of the


Question 4 framework agreement, which is to prevent abuse arising
from the use of consecutive short-term employment
Is a Member State in breach of Clause 8(3) of the framework contracts, necessitate the imposition of stricter requirements
agreement on fixed-term work if it introduces into its national in relation to ‘objective reasons’ the greater the number of
legislation implementing Directive 1999/70/EC a budgetary successive fixed-term employment contracts that have
reason for a fixed term such as that described in Question 2, already preceded the one that is to be assessed or the
which is of general application to the whole of its public sector longer the period during which the employee concerned
but under its national legal system prior to the adoption of has already been employed under successive fixed-term
Directive 1999/70/EC only existed in comparable form in contracts?