Odbor kompatibility s právem ES
Úřad vlády ČR
I S A P
Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury
ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů

Číslo (Kód CELEX):
Number (CELEX Code):		61991J0259
Název:
Title: 		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 2 AUGUST 1993. PILAR ALLUE AND CARMEL MARY COONAN AND OTHERS V UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI VENEZIA AND UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI PARMA. REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING: PRETURA DI VENEZIA AND PRETURA DI PARMA - ITALY. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS - FOREIGN LANGUAGE ASSISTANTS. JOINED CASES C-259/91, C-331/91 AND C-332/91.
Publikace:
Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1993 PAGES I-4309
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords		FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS;
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:		157E048
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
    [458a] Allué I Case 33/80 Allué and Coonan v Universitŕ degli studie di Venezia [1989] ECR 1591
Plný text:
Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
Pilar Allué and the other plaintiffs in the main proceedings (“the plaintiffs”), who are of Spanish, British and German nationality, were employed as foreign language assistants at Italian universities, holding temporary contracts which were renewed each academic year. Pursuant to Italian law, contracts concerning the appointment of foreign-language assistants may not be extended beyond the academic year for which they are concluded and may be renewed every year for a maximum of five years. When the respective universities refused to renew their contracts, the plaintiffs initiated proceedings claiming, in essence, to be treated equally to associated lecturers appointed for an indeterminate period with respect to pay, social security etc.
In a prior preliminary ruling ( [458a]
Allué I
) the Court has ruled that Article 48(2) of the EEC Treaty precludes the application of a provision of national law imposing a limit on the duration of the employment relationship between universities and foreign-language assistants where there is, in principle, no such limit with regard to other workers.
The Pretore di Venezia (District Magistrate, Venice) and the Pretore di Parma found that uncertainty existed as to whether the judgement in
Allué I
merely concerned the maximum time-limit of five years or also the initial limitation for one academic year provided for in the relevant Italian legislation. They therefore stayed the proceedings and referred to the Court questions which, according to the Court, ask in substance whether it is contrary to Article 48(2) of the Treaty for the legislation of a Member State to limit the duration of the contracts of employment of foreign language assistants at a university to one year, with the possibility of renewal, where in principle no such limit exists with regard to other teachers.

Názor soudu a komentář:
The Court restates its established case-law that Article 48(2) of the Treaty not merely prohibits overt discrimination but also covert forms which, by the application of facially neutral principles, have a discriminatory effect upon nationals from other Member States ( [363]
Pinna
). Based on this case-law, the Court had in
Allué I
found the maximum time-limit imposed on contracts concerning foreign-language assistance to be incompatible with Article 48(2) because, pursuant to statistics, it essentially affected nationals of other Member States. The Court now adds that the same finding also applies with regard to the initial limitation of contracts with foreign-language assistants.
The Italian Government contended that this time-limit was justified in order to ensure the proper management of the universities because the number of foreign-language assistants engaged by universities depends on the teaching requirements and the resources available to the universities to pay assistants. The Court points out that covert discrimination, prohibited in principle by Article 48(2), can nonetheless be justified on objective grounds unrelated to any discrimination on the basis of nationality - such as the need to ensure proper management of the universities - provided that such measures must be necessary and appropriate to attain the objective pursued. It does not, however, accept that the legislation presently at issue is thus justified.
“[C]ontracts which are intended to meet continuous needs for teaching, as where the study of a particular language is compulsory or is know to be especially in demand, must be concluded for an indeterminate period in the same way as the employment relationship of other teachers fulfilling such needs. If subsequently the number of students applying for courses in a particular foreign language drops, or if that language is no longer given the same priority in a Member State, or again if the university does not have sufficient funds to provide teaching, surplus foreign-language assistants could be dismissed in order to adjust staff numbers to the new conditions. Such a measure would be less restrictive of the freedom of movement of workers than the contested measure.” The Court sees that the consequence of this ruling is that the termination of the contracts can be challenged before the courts, thus making it substantially more difficult for the universities to discharge foreign-language assistants when necessary. It argues that this burden, which is common to all employment contracts, must be accepted.
The judgement has been sharply criticized as not adequately taking care of the needs of the universities. In particular, the broad terms with which the Court demand that contracts intended to meet continuous needs for teaching must be concluded for an indefinite period appear doubtful.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
LE PRINCIPE D' ÉGALITÉ DE TRAITEMENT, DONT L' ARTICLE 48, PARAGRAPHE 2, DU TRAITÉ EST UNE EXPRESSION SPÉCIFIQUE ET QUI PROHIBE NON SEULEMENT LES DISCRIMINATIONS OSTENSIBLES, FONDÉES SUR LA NATIONALITÉ, MAIS ENCORE TOUTES FORMES DISSIMULÉES DE DISCRIMINATION QUI, PAR APPLICATION D' AUTRES CRITŐRES DE DISTINCTION, ABOUTISSENT EN FAIT AU MëME RÉSULTAT, S' OPPOSE ů CE QUE LA LÉGISLATION D' UN ETAT MEMBRE LIMITE EN TOUTE HYPOTHŐSE ů UN AN, AVEC POSSIBILITÉ DE RENOUVELLEMENT, LA DURÉE DES CONTRATS DE TRAVAIL DES LECTEURS DE LANGUE ÉTRANGŐRE AUPRŐS DES UNIVERSITÉS, ALORS QU' UNE TELLE LIMITE N' EXISTE PAS, EN PRINCIPE, EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES AUTRES ENSEIGNANTS. EN EFFET, MëME SI LES DISPOSITIONS DU TRAITÉ NE S' OPPOSENT PAS ů L' ADOPTION PAR LES ETATS MEMBRES DE MESURES INDISTINCTEMENT APPLICABLES DESTINÉES ů ASSURER LA BONNE GESTION DE LEURS UNIVERSITÉS ET QUI POURRAIENT AFFECTER, EN PARTICULIER, LES RESSORTISSANTS DES AUTRES ETATS MEMBRES, DE TELLES MESURES DOIVENT RESPECTER LE PRINCIPE DE PROPORTIONNALITÉ ET CONS
TITUER DES MESURES APPROPRIÉES ET NÉCESSAIRES POUR ATTEINDRE LE BUT RECHERCHÉ. S' AGISSANT DES CONTRATS DE TRAVAIL DES LECTEURS DE LANGUE ÉTRANGŐRE, LE DROIT COMMUNAUTAIRE NE FAIT PAS OBSTACLE ů CE QU' ILS SOIENT CONCLUS POUR UNE DURÉE DÉTERMINÉE, LORSQUE, AU MOMENT DE L' ENGAGEMENT, IL APPARAIT QUE LES BESOINS DE L' ENSEIGNEMENT NE DÉPASSENT PAS UNE TELLE DURÉE. EN REVANCHE, LES CONTRATS QUI SONT CENSÉS RÉPONDRE ů DES BESOINS CONSTANTS DE L' ENSEIGNEMENT DOIVENT ëTRE CONCLUS POUR UNE DURÉE INDÉTERMINÉE ů L' INSTAR DES RELATIONS D' EMPLOI DES AUTRES ENSEIGNANTS RÉPONDANT ů DE TELS BESOINS. SI LES BESOINS DE L' ENSEIGNEMENT VENAIENT ů CHANGER, IL POURRAIT ëTRE PROCÉDÉ AU LICENCIEMENT DES LECTEURS SE TROUVANT EN SURNOMBRE AFIN D' ADAPTER LES EFFECTIFS AUX NOUVELLES CONDITIONS, CETTE MESURE AYANT DES EFFETS MOINS RESTRICTIFS SUR LA LIBRE CIRCULATION DES TRAVAILLEURS QUE LA LIMITATION DE LA DURÉE DE LEURS CONTRATS.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):