Must clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC, be interpreted as meaning that the right, derived from obtaining a post in the public sector, to the conferral of a particular administrative status in relation to the post – also in the public sector – which was held up until then is a condition of employment in respect of which temporary workers and permanent workers may not be treated differently?
Must clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC, be interpreted as meaning that justification on objective grounds for the different treatment between fixed-term workers and permanent workers includes the aim of preventing serious failings and harm as regards the instability of workforces in a field as sensitive as the provision of healthcare, which falls under the constitutional right to the protection of health, such that it can serve as the basis for refusal to grant a particular type of leave of absence to those who obtain a temporary post but not to those who obtain a permanent post?
Does clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC, preclude a rule such as that laid down in Article 15 of [Royal Decree 365/1995], which excludes posts held as a temporary civil servant or as a temporary staff member from being part of the posts which give entitlement to the status of on leave of absence by reason of employment in the public sector, when that status must be granted to those who take up a permanent post in the public sector and that status is more advantageous for a public servant than the other alternative administrative statuses which that public servant would have to request in order to be able to take up a new post to which he or she has been nominated?
Servicio Aragonés de la Salud – v – LB, reference lodged by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón (Spain) on 31 December 2019