The appeal of the Ministry of Education and the Department of Public Administration and Personnel was rejected by the Cyprus Court of Appeal on Tuesday in relation to the conviction of the Court of Justice, which concerned successive annual service contracts between two music workers and the competent ministry.
Specifically, the applicants are graduates of music teachers and began teaching in Music Schools, since 2009 and 2012, respectively.
Since 2012, sequential annual service contracts were concluded between the appellants and the Ministry of Education and Culture.
By the appeal, it was recognized by the Court of First Instance that under Article 7 (1) of the employee with a fixed -term work (prohibition of adverse treatment) law (Law 98 (I)/ 2003) (“The Law”), the respondents have become employed by their employees of 3 June 2015 and for the respondent 2 from August 8, 2015.
According to the decision of the Court of Appeal, “taking into account the circumstances of this appeal, we conclude that it is not a manifestly unfounded appeal, despite the fact that we consider that the most proper procedural approach would be to disconnect the revenge applications by the Court of First Instance, the consequent decision for each appeal and the subsequent decision for each appeal, as well as each. Applicant. “
As the Court of Appeal states, “on the basis of the irreparable events, but also clear provisions of critical legislation, the Court of First Instance had no other reasonable choice, rather than to reach the favors, resulting in the burden of proof to be transferred to the appellants, so that the appellants could not be converted to the appellants. They justified employment of a certain duration. “
It also states that “under the circumstances of this case, the appeal by the appeal of objective reasons, which, as it appears, are solely based on the fact that the renewal of the contracts in question is to meet temporary needs, could not lead to the conclusion that the notice is justified”.
In addition, the Court of Appeal states that it does not find in this case specialization in the case of the appellants, of particular circumstances that advocate in favor of the existence of objective reasons that led, under the circumstances to a different first -instance outcome, in accordance with the above analysis by the Court of Justice.
It stresses, however, that it is derived from the above -mentioned WEU that each case must be judged by its own particular incidents.
Concerning the appellant’s complaint that the Court of First Instance did not take into account in relation to its above finding, that the inquiry contracts were interrupted for each school year for three months, that the respondents knew that each contract had no limited duration and that they were not limited. “They fall within the concept of legal point”.
“In particular,” he notes, “they do not show that the view of the Court of First Instance on primary matters cannot reasonably be supported.”
KEPE