Brussels, 26/11/2014 (Agence Europe) - Italian legislation on fixed-term employment contracts in the school sector is contrary to EU law as it contains no measure to prevent or penalise abuse of this type of contract.
With its ruling (joined cases C-22/13, C-61/13, C-62/13, C-63/13 and C-418/13) delivered on Wednesday 26 November, the Court of Justice of the EU found in favour of a number of Italian teachers and administrative staff who were challenging the compliance of Italian legislation, as applied in the system for replacing teaching and administrative staff in the state school sector, with the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded between the European social partners in 1999 and annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC.
This ruling now forms part of the already considerable case-law on the issue of the misuse of fixed-term contracts. Advocate General Maciej Szpunar has already amply described the framework to the issue at hand (see EUROPE 11128) and the Court today upheld the arguments and criticisms of the Italian legislation he had made. The judges confirmed that the framework agreement applies to workers as a whole, even to those in as particular a sector as state education. Member states, thus, are required to set out the objective reasons justifying the renewal of this type of contract or otherwise a measure determining the maximum total duration of the contracts or the number of renewals of contracts.
Italian legislation makes no provision for either a maximum duration or a limited number of renewals. It remained thus for the Court to determine if there were objective reasons to justify renewing the complainants' contracts of never less than 45 months over a five-year period.
Noting the very specific nature of education which requires a certain flexibility, the Court nevertheless took the view that the way the system for replacing and granting permanent contracts to staff in Italy leads to misuse of successive fixed-term contracts. This makes it impossible for replacement teachers to seek compensation for damage suffered or have the slightest idea of when their contracts will converted into contracts of indefinite duration - the granting of a permanent contract being a matter of chance - which runs counter to the objectives of the framework agreement, the Court concludes. (JK)