## Facts

- Konstantinos Adeneler and other workers were employed by Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (ELOG), a Greek public-law body, under repeated fixed-term employment contracts.
- The work performed under these contracts was alleged to meet ongoing, permanent staffing needs rather than temporary needs.
- Greek rules permitted repeated use of fixed-term contracts in parts of the public sector but prohibited or severely limited converting such contracts into contracts of indefinite duration.
- The workers claimed the successive renewals were abusive and sought recognition of an indefinite employment relationship.
- A Greek first-instance court referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber) for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Directive 1999/70/EC and the framework agreement on fixed-term work, especially clause 5 (abuse prevention).

## Issues

1. During a directive’s transposition period, what obligations bind Member States and national courts regarding measures that might conflict with the directive’s objectives?
2. After the transposition period expires, how far must national courts interpret domestic law, where possible, consistently with Directive 1999/70/EC and the framework agreement?
3. When are fixed-term employment contracts “successive” for purposes of triggering clause 5 anti-abuse protections?
4. What qualifies as “objective reasons” under clause 5(1)(a) to justify renewal of fixed-term contracts?
5. If national law restricts or bars conversion to indefinite contracts, what consequences or sanctions are required to prevent and remedy abuse of successive fixed-term contracts?

## Decision

- The Court held that, during the transposition period, Member States must refrain from adopting measures liable seriously to compromise the directive’s required result; the full duty of consistent judicial interpretation arises after the transposition period expires.
- After the transposition deadline, national courts must interpret domestic law, so far as possible, in light of the directive’s wording and purpose to achieve the result it seeks, subject to the limit that courts may not interpret national law contra legem.
- “Successive” fixed-term contracts include arrangements where contracts are renewed with only short intervals and the employment is, in substance, continuous; formal breaks cannot be used to defeat clause 5’s function.
- “Objective reasons” for renewal must rest on precise and concrete circumstances of the specific activity and context; general or abstract statutory formulas, routine public-sector staffing practices, and generic administrative or budgetary considerations are insufficient, particularly where contracts cover normal and permanent needs.
- Clause 5 requires effective, dissuasive measures to prevent and sanction abuse; if conversion to an indefinite contract is excluded or tightly restricted, the legal system must provide other measures that effectively penalize the abuse and eliminate the consequences of the breach.

## Legal Principles

- Member States, during a directive’s transposition period, must not enact measures that seriously jeopardize attainment of the directive’s objectives.
- After the transposition period expires, national courts must interpret national law, where possible, consistently with the directive’s wording and purpose to secure the directive’s result, without adopting a contra legem interpretation.
- “Successive fixed-term contracts” is interpreted functionally to capture continuous employment maintained through repeated renewals separated by short interruptions.
- “Objective reasons” under clause 5(1)(a) must be specific, verifiable, and tied to concrete circumstances; reliance on broad legislative categories or permanent staffing needs does not justify serial renewals.
- The framework agreement applies to both public and private sectors; public-sector constraints cannot, by themselves, justify systematic recourse to fixed-term contracts for permanent functions.
- Where conversion to indefinite status is unavailable, Member States must ensure alternative remedies that are genuinely effective and dissuasive and that address the consequences of abuse.

## Conclusion

The Court required a functional, purpose-driven application of clause 5 to curb abusive serial fixed-term employment, clarified when consistent interpretation duties bind national courts, and insisted on effective sanctions where national law blocks conversion to indefinite contracts.


Adeneler v. Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (ELOG), Case C-212/04, 2006 E.C.R. I-6057 (C.J.E.U. 2006)