ECJ 20 January 2011, case C-463/09 (CLECE SA – v – María Socorro Martín Valor and Ayuntamiento de Cobisa), Transfer

“CLECE” is a cleaning company that had contracted with the municipality of Cobisa to...

ECJ 18 January 2011, case C-272/10 (Souzana Berziki-Nikolakaki – v – ASEP and Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis), Fixed-term work

Ms Berziki was employed as a full-time microbiologist by the University of Thessaloniki on the...

ECJ 18 January 2011, case C-272/10 (Souzana Berziki-Nikolakaki – v – ASEP and Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis), Fixed-term work

Ms Berziki was employed as a full-time microbiologist by the University of Thessaloniki on the...

ECJ 22 December 2010, cases C-444/09 and C-459/09 (Gavieiro), Fixed-term work

Interim civil servants fall within the scope of Directive 1999/70, which covers length-of-service increments. The lack of a reference to the Directive in domestic law does not preclude that law from constituting a measure of transposition. Clause 4 of the Directive is unconditional and sufficiently precise for individuals to rely on it in the period from the transposition deadline, with retroactive effect.

ECJ 22 December 2010, cases C-444/09 and C-459/09 (Gavieiro), Fixed-term work

Interim civil servants fall within the scope of Directive 1999/70, which covers length-of-service increments. The lack of a reference to the Directive in domestic law does not preclude that law from constituting a measure of transposition. Clause 4 of the Directive is unconditional and sufficiently precise for individuals to rely on it in the period from the transposition deadline, with retroactive effect.

ECJ 18 November 2010, cases C-250/09 and C-268/09 (Vasil Ivanov Georgiev – v – Tehnicheski Universitet), Age discrimination

Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation [...] under which university professors are compulsorily retired when they reach the age of 68 and may continue working beyond the age of 65 only by means of fixed-term one-year contracts renewable at most twice, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate aim linked inter alia to employment and job market policy, such as the delivery of quality teaching and the best possible allocation of posts for professors between the generations, and that it makes it possible to achieve that aim by appropriate and necessary means. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.

ECJ 18 November 2010, cases C-250/09 and C-268/09 (Vasil Ivanov Georgiev – v – Tehnicheski Universitet), Age discrimination

Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation [...] under which university professors are compulsorily retired when they reach the age of 68 and may continue working beyond the age of 65 only by means of fixed-term one-year contracts renewable at most twice, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate aim linked inter alia to employment and job market policy, such as the delivery of quality teaching and the best possible allocation of posts for professors between the generations, and that it makes it possible to achieve that aim by appropriate and necessary means. It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.

ECJ 18 November 2010, case C-356/09 (Pensionsversicherungsanstalt – v – Christine Kleist), Gender discrimination

Directive 76/207 must be interpreted as meaning that national rules that permit an employer to dismiss employees who have acquired the right to draw their retirement pension, when that right is acquired by women sooner than by men, constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of sex prohibited by that Directive.

ECJ 18 November 2010, case C-356/09 (Pensionsversicherungsanstalt – v – Christine Kleist), Gender discrimination

Directive 76/207 must be interpreted as meaning that national rules that permit an employer to dismiss employees who have acquired the right to draw their retirement pension, when that right is acquired by women sooner than by men, constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of sex prohibited by that Directive.

ECJ 11 November 2010, case C-20/10 (Vino Damiano – v – Poste Italiane SpA), Fixed-term work

Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement does not preclude a national measure such as Paragraph 2(1bis).