ALGEMENE MEDEDELING

In de loop van januari 2025 wordt deze online omgeving geïntegreerd in Boomportaal (www.boomportaal.nl), waarna deze omgeving wordt opgeheven. Vanaf dat moment linkt deze URL automatisch door naar Boomportaal.

DOI: 10.5553/EELC/187791072019004004045

European Employment Law CasesAccess_open

Pending Cases

Case C-644/19, Fixed-term work, Age discrimination

FT – v – Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, GS and Others, and Ministerul Educației Naționale, reference lodged by the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) on 28 August 2019

Trefwoorden Fixed-term work, Age discrimination
DOI
Toon PDF Toon volledige grootte
Statistiek Citeerwijze
Dit artikel is keer geraadpleegd.
Dit artikel is 0 keer gedownload.
Aanbevolen citeerwijze bij dit artikel
, "Case C-644/19, Fixed-term work, Age discrimination", European Employment Law Cases, 4, (2019):293-293

Dit artikel wordt geciteerd in

      1. Are Article 1, Article 2(2)(b) and Article 3 of Directive 2000/78/EC and Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, implemented by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, to be interpreted as meaning that a measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is discriminatory, within the meaning of those provisions, where it enables an employer to decide that individuals who have reached the age of 65 may continue to perform their duties as tenured members of staff and retain the rights which they enjoyed prior to retirement only if they have doctoral supervisor status, thereby placing at a disadvantage other individuals in a similar situation who may do the same only if there are vacant posts and they meet certain requirements relating to professional performance, and to require individuals who do not have doctoral supervisor status to perform similar academic duties under successive fixed-term employment contracts under which they receive remuneration on an ‘hourly basis’ at a level below that paid to tenured members of a university’s staff?

      2. Can the precedence in the application of EU law (the principle of the primacy of EU law) be interpreted as permitting a national court to disapply a final ruling of another national court in which it has been held that, in the factual situation described, Directive 2000/78/EC has been complied with and there has been no discrimination?


Print dit artikel