28) By order of 26 January 2017, received on 22 February 2017, the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Labour Court No 2, Terrassa) referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU:

1. Is the remedy provided by the legal system when a disciplinary dismissal is held to be unlawful and, in particular, the remedy under Article 96(2) of the Real Decreto Legislativo 5/2015 (Royal Legislative Decree 5/2015) of 30 October approving the consolidated text of the Ley del Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público (Basic Statute for Public Employees), to be regarded as covered by the concept of “employment conditions” under Clause 4(1) of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP?
2. Would a situation, such as that provided for in Article 96(2) of the Real Decreto Legislativo 5/2015 (Royal Legislative Decree 5/2015) of 30 October approving the consolidated text of the Ley del Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público (Basic Statute for Public Employees), in which the disciplinary dismissal of a permanent worker, when that dismissal is held to be wrongful, that is to say unlawful, always requires the reinstatement of the worker, but, when the worker is subject to an indefinite or temporary contract performing the same duties as a permanent worker, permits that worker not to be reinstated in return for compensation, be discriminatory under Clause 4(1) of Council Directive 1999/70 of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP?
3. Would unequal treatment be justified in the same situation as in the question above, not in the light of the Directive but of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?’

...

31) In accordance with Article 267 TFEU, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of EU law. Since both Directive 1999/70, together with the Framework Agreement annexed to it, and Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights are provisions of EU law, there can be no doubt about the Court’s jurisdiction to answer the questions referred.

...

D. The principle of equality before the law pursuant to Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (third question referred)

97) By its third and final question, the referring court wishes to know lastly whether ‘unequal treatment [would] be justified in the same situation as in the question above, not in the light of the Directive but of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’.

98) In essence, that question seeks to ascertain whether discrimination within the meaning of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is present where, in the public sector, the right to reinstatement following unlawful dismissal by the employer is granted only to permanent employees, but not to fixed-term workers.

99) The general EU-law principle of equal treatment, which is now also established in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, requires, according to settled case-law, that comparable situations must not be treated differently and different situations must not be treated in the same way, unless such treatment is objectively justified. ( 59 )

100) The pending Grupo Norte Facility case recently gave me the opportunity to submit that the general EU-law principle of equal treatment cannot, from the point of view of its content, lead to a conclusion different from that supported by the special principle of non-discrimination in Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement (see also Article 52(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights). ( 60 ) Accordingly, the Court of Justice, too, examines measures which fall within the scope of an anti-discrimination directive only in the light of that directive and does not assess them against the primary-law principles as such, to which the directive gives practical expression. ( 61 )

101) In the light of the examination of Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement which has already been carried out in the context of the second question, there is therefore no need to give a separate answer to the third question in the present case.