08 Nov European Court of Justice – november 2024
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 2008/104/EC – Temporary agency work – Article 3(1) – Temporary-work agency – User undertaking – Definition – Assignment of a worker – Contract for the provision of services – Article 5(1) – Principle of equal treatment – Directive 2006/54/EC – Article 15 – Maternity leave – Invalid or unfair dismissal – Declaration that the temporary-work agency and the user undertaking are jointly and severally liable.
ECJ, 24 October 2024, Case C 441/23, Omnitel Comunicaciones and Others.
Link
Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work must be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to any natural or legal person who enters into a contract of employment or an employment relationship with a worker in order to assign him or her to a user undertaking to work there temporarily under that undertaking’s supervision and direction, and who assigns that worker to that undertaking, even though that person is not recognised by domestic legislation as a temporary-work agency because the person does not have the relevant administrative authorisation.
Article 3(1)(b) to (d) of Directive 2008/104 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘temporary agency work’ for the purposes of that provision covers the situation in which a worker is assigned to a user undertaking by an undertaking whose activity is to conclude contracts of employment or employment relationships with workers with a view to assigning them to a user undertaking for a given period of time, provided that that worker is under the supervision and direction of the user undertaking and provided that that undertaking, first, imposes on the worker the services to be performed, the manner of their performance and the requirement to comply with its instructions and internal rules, and, secondly, monitors and supervises the way in which the worker performs his or her duties.
Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/104 must be interpreted as meaning that a temporary agency worker assigned to a user undertaking within the meaning of that directive must, for the duration of his or her assignment at that undertaking, receive a salary that is at least equal to that which he or she would have received if he or she had been recruited directly by that undertaking.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Directive 2000/78/EC – Article 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – Upper age limit of 60 years for first appointment to the position of lawyer commissioned as notary – Vacant positions due to a lack of younger candidates – Justification – Appropriateness and necessity.
ECJ, 17 October 2024, Case C‑408/23, Anwaltsnotarin.
Link
Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, read in the light of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which lays down an upper age limit of 60 years for the first appointment to a position of lawyer commissioned as notary, provided that that legislation pursues a legitimate employment and labour market policy objective and that, in the relevant legislative context and in the light of all the situations to which it applies, that legislation is appropriate and necessary for the achievement of that objective.
