Brussels, 24/07/2014 (Agence Europe) - On the basis of the already copious case law on the abusive use of fixed-term contracts, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar concluded at the Court of Justice of the European Union (joined cases of C-22/13, C-61/13, C-62/13, C-63/13 and C-418/13) on Thursday 17 July that Italy is guilty of abusing fixed-term contracts in the public education sector.
A number of Italian teachers and administrative workers went to the courts to have their fixed-term contracts, which have been successively renewed over a five-year period, made into permanent contracts. They also wanted to be confirmed in their posts, have salaries paid for periods during which their employment was interrupted between contracts and, additionally, be paid compensation for damages.
They are challenging Italian legislation, which lays down a system for the replacement of teaching staff in the state schools sector system based on lists of suitable candidates in which those applying for teaching posts are listed by order of seniority. With respect to applicants for teaching posts employed on the basis of fixed-term contracts, the system does not make provision for either the maximum duration of the contracts or the maximum number of renewals and no competitions were organised for the recruitment of staff in the state schools sector between 1999 and 2011.
On the basis of several cases (C-307/05, C-144/04) and the EU framework agreement on fixed-term work (annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC), the Advocate General concluded that Italian legislation does not allow the identification of objective and transparent criteria allowing verification of whether there is a genuine need for temporary replacement. Staff uncertainty was exacerbated by the lack of public competitions for more than 10 years and shows that the fixed-term contracts were used to meet fixed and permanent needs and therefore were an infringement of the rules.
Finally, in response to the Italian government's claims that there is a need for a very high degree of flexibility due to the cyclical and unpredictable variations in the school population and financial considerations, the Advocate General argues that financial reasons are inadmissible and the use of fixed-term contracts can only be justified for specific tasks or staff absences, such as those relating to parental or sick leave. (JK)