The judges of the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in a judgment of Thursday 20 June in Case C-72/18 that, under the framework agreement on fixed-term work, professors who are contract agents under public law are entitled to the same additional remuneration for grade as that received by civil servant professors with the same seniority, if the completion of a certain period of service is the only condition for granting that supplement.
A European citizen was hired in 2007 by the Ministry of Education of Navarre (Spain) as a professor under a fixed-term public law contract. In 2016, he asked this ministry to grant him the additional remuneration for grade received by civil servant professors with the same seniority as his. His request having been rejected, he brought an action before a Spanish administrative court.
The Spanish court first noted that, under the legal regime currently in force in Navarre, the only objective condition for the payment of the additional remuneration for grade is a seniority of 6 years and 7 months in the grade immediately below, the advancement of grade thus occurring automatically as time passes. The court adds that the national regulations perceive the grade as a mechanism for professional development specific to officials.
The framework agreement on fixed-term work, annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC, prohibits differential treatment in employment conditions for fixed-term and permanent workers solely on the grounds that they work for a fixed period. This, only if there is an ‘objective reason’ justifying this less favourable treatment.
The administrative court referred the matter to the Court for a preliminary ruling in order for it to determine whether the nature and purpose of the additional remuneration for grade may constitute an ‘objective reason’ justifying the less favourable treatment for contract agents under public law than for civil servants.
In their judgment, the Luxembourg magistrates consider that the framework agreement referred to above precludes the granting, under national law, of additional remuneration to teachers employed as statutory civil servants by excluding teachers employed under public law contract, if the only condition for granting such complete remuneration is the length of service.
They note first of all, that the granting of additional remuneration must be considered as an ‘employment condition’ within the meaning of the framework agreement.
The CJEU recalls that it is for the national court to examine the facts to determine whether statutory officials and contract agents under public law in question are in a comparable situation; it nevertheless notes that there is no difference between the functions, services and professional obligations performed by a civil servant professor and those performed by a professor who is a contract agent under public law.
However, there is a difference in treatment here. The Court therefore examines whether there is an ‘objective reason’ capable of justifying such a difference. For the Court, the reference to the mere temporary nature of contract agents under public law is not capable of constituting, in itself, an ‘objective reason’ within the meaning of the framework agreement and the exclusion of contract agents under public law from the benefit of the additional remuneration for grade cannot therefore be justified unless the characteristics inherent in the Staff Regulations of Officials are really decisive for the granting of that benefit. However, only seniority seems to matter here and not the promotion in grade of the official.
While the national court will indeed have to verify the facts, the Court concludes that there is, in the present case, no ‘objective reason’ capable of justifying the exclusion of contract agents under public law who have completed the required period of service from receiving the additional remuneration in question. (Original version in French by Lucas Tripoteau)