Brussels, 08/03/2012 (Agence Europe) - A member state whose legislation includes the transformation, after a certain period, of fixed term contracts into open-ended contracts is not obliged to ensure that the latter contract includes exactly the same main clauses included in the former. Nonetheless, it has to do ensure that these clauses are not substantially amended in a way that could damage the interests of the person working on such a contract when this individual is working on the same job and performing the same tasks.
In this ruling on Thursday 8 March on Case C-251/11, the European Court of Justice provided its interpretation of the framework agreement on fixed term contracts included in the annex to the 1999/70/EC directive (implemented in the framework agreement of the ETUC, UNICE and the CEEP on fixed term contracts). The litigation involved the French state, in this case the University of Western Brittany (UBO) and Mr Huet, an employee who had been working at this university for six years as a research officer on successive fixed term contracts that have been continually renewed from 1 March 2002 to 15 March 2008. When the most recent fixed term contract expired, the university proposed to the plaintiff, in compliance with French legislation, an open-ended contract that would employ this research officer on lower pay than he received in his former fixed term contract. The latter considers that the new contract did not correspond to the tasks of a researcher, which he had been carrying out for several years. When faced with the refusal of the university to change matters, the plaintiff went to the Court of Administration in Rennes in an attempt to get the UBO to redefine its fixed term contract as an appropriate contract for the recruitment of a researcher on commensurate pay. The administrative tribunal subsequently asked the European Court of Justice if the European framework agreement (see above), which provides the framework for this kind of contract, should be interpreted in the sense that a member state, which includes in its national legislation, the possibility of transforming fixed term contracts into open-ended contracts until the former had lasted for a certain time, is obliged to introduce as part of the open-ended contract, the exact same clauses is in the former.
The Court of Justice said that the member state is not obliged to do so but indicated that the open-ended contract cannot include substantial amendments to the previous contract clauses if these have an overall negative impact on the interests of the plaintiff when the latter's role and tasks remain the same. To ensure that the objectives contained in the 1999/70 directive are not infringed and it functions appropriately, which is, subsequently, to ensure that there is a general framework for preventing abuses being committed that result from the use of labour relations or successive fixed term contracts. (FG/transl.fl)