Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2025:660
Date: 2025-09-04
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-253/24 – 1 
Case C-253/24 [Pelavi] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
9 April 2024 
Referring court: 
Corte di Appello di L’Aquila (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
4 April 2024 
Defendant and appellant: 
Ministero della Giustizia (Italy) 
Applicant and respondent: 
NZ 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal proceedings following an appeal against the judgment partially accepting 
the application lodged by the applicant, an honorary judge at the court of first 
instance, seeking, inter alia, a determination on the status of worker under EU law 
and the consequent right to financial and legal treatment equivalent to ordinary 
judges, including holidays, leave, sickness and injury benefit, severance pay, 
pensions and social security, as well as an order for the Ministero della Giustizia 
(Ministry of Justice, Italy) to pay compensation for non-fulfilment of the 
obligations laid down by the relevant EU directives and for misuse of successive 
fixed-term employment relationships. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of Articles 31 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union, Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC and Clauses 4 and 5(1) of the 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-253/24 
 
      
Framework Agreement on Fixed-term Work concluded on 18 March 1999, which 
is annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC. The referring court has doubts as to the 
compatibility with those provisions of national legislation which provides, for an 
honorary judge who may be classified as a ‘worker’ and a ‘fixed-term worker’, (i) 
for the loss of the right to paid leave previously accrued in the event of 
confirmation in post until the age of 70, and (ii) as a measure aimed at penalising 
the misuse of fixed-term employment contracts, for the confirmation in post of the 
honorary judge until the age of 70 or, in the event of non-confirmation, for 
financial compensation, with a waiver, in both cases, of any rights previously 
accrued. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Do Articles 31(1) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union, Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC and Clause 4 of the 
Framework Agreement on Fixed-term Work preclude national legislation which 
provides that an honorary judge, who may be classified as a ‘worker’ and a ‘fixed-
term worker’ and who is confirmed in post until the age of 70, forfeits the right to 
paid leave for the period prior to the confirmation? 
2. Does Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-term Work 
preclude national legislation which, as a measure aimed at penalising the misuse 
of fixed-term contracts, provides for the confirmation in post of the honorary 
judge until the age of 70, after passing a non-competitive assessment procedure, 
and – in the event of failing the assessment procedure – provides for an allowance, 
in both cases requiring a waiver of any rights previously accrued? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Articles 31 and 47 (‘the 
Charter’). 
Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which 
is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the 
Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and 
CEEP, Clause 2 and, in particular, Clause 4 and Clause 5(1). 
Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, 
Article 7 (Working Time Directive). 
Judgment of 15 April 2008, Impact (C-286/06, EU:C:2008:223) (‘the judgment in 
Impact’). 
Judgment of 9 November 2023, Keolis Agen (C-271/22 to C-275/22, 
EU:C:2023:834). 
PELAVI 
 
      
Judgment of 16 July 2020, Governo della Repubblica italiana (Status of Italian 
magistrates) (C-658/18, EU:C:2020:572) (‘the judgment in UX’). 
Judgment of 7 April 2022, Ministero della Giustizia and Others (Status of Italian 
magistrates) (C-236/20, EU:C:2022:263) (‘the judgment in PG’). 
Judgment of 26 November 2014, Mascolo and Others (C-31/13 to C-63/13 and 
C-418/13, EU:C:2014:2401) (‘the judgment in Mascolo’). 
Judgment of 8 May 2019, Rossato and Conservatorio di Musica F.A. Bonporti 
(C-494/17, EU:C:2019:387 8 (‘the judgment in Rossato’). 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Article 29(1) to (9) of decreto legislativo del 13 luglio 2017, n. 116 (Legislative 
Decree No 116 of 13 July 2017; ‘Legislative Decree No 116/2017’), as replaced 
by Article 1(629) et seq. of legge del 30 dicembre 2021, n. 234 (Law No 234 of 
30 December 2021):  
‘1. Honorary judges in service on the date on which this decree enters into force 
may be confirmed in their posts on request until the age of 70.  
2. Honorary judges in service on the date when this decree enters into force 
who do not qualify for confirmation, either because they do not submit an 
application or because they do not pass the assessment procedure referred to in 
paragraph 3, shall be entitled, subject to their right to refuse, to a payment of 
EUR 2 500 before tax for each year of service during which the judge has been 
engaged in hearings for at least 80 days, and to a payment of EUR 1 500 before 
tax for each year of service during which the judge has been engaged in hearings 
for fewer than 80 days, and in any case up to a total per capita limit of 
EUR 50 000 before tax. For the purpose of calculating the payment due under the 
preceding sentence, service for periods exceeding six months shall be deemed 
equal to one year. Receipt of the payment entails a waiver of all further claims of 
any nature whatsoever arising from the terminated honorary relationship.  
3. For the purposes of the confirmation referred to in paragraph 1, the 
Consiglio superiore della magistratura (Supreme Council of the Judiciary) shall 
pass a resolution to hold three separate assessment procedures each year in the 
three-year period 2022-2024 These shall cover honorary judges in service who 
have completed the following as of the date on which this decree enters into force: 
(a) more than 16 years of service; (b) between 12 and 16 years of service; and (c) 
fewer than 12 years of service.  
4. The assessment procedures referred to in paragraph 3 shall consist of an oral 
examination, of a maximum duration of 30 minutes, on a practical case involving 
substantive and procedural civil law or substantive and procedural criminal law in 
the field in which the candidates have worked, exclusively or at least 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-253/24 
 
      
predominantly, as an honorary judge. The assessment procedures shall take place 
on a district basis. The assessment committee shall be composed of the president 
of the court or a representative thereof, a judge who has passed at least the second 
professional assessment, appointed by the judicial council, and a lawyer entered in 
the special register of advocates before the higher courts, appointed by the Bar 
Council. …  
5. The application to participate in the assessment procedures referred to in 
paragraph 3 entails the waiver of all further claims of any nature whatsoever 
arising from the previous honorary relationship, except for the right to the 
payment referred to in paragraph 2 in the event of non-confirmation. 
6. Honorary judges who are confirmed in post, within a period of 30 days from 
notification of the outcome of the assessment procedure referred to in paragraph 3, 
may opt to work exclusively as an honorary judge. In that case, honorary judges 
who are confirmed in post shall receive remuneration based on the salary and 
payment in respect of the 13th month due on 31 December 2021 to judicial 
administrative staff … A judicial allowance shall also be paid of an amount equal 
to twice the administrative allowance due to the judicial administrative staff 
referred to in the previous sentence … 
7. Honorary judges who are confirmed in post and who do not exercise the 
option referred to in paragraph 6 shall receive remuneration based on the salary 
and payment in respect of the 13th month due on 31 December 2021 to judicial 
administrative staff … The provisions of Article 1(3) of this decree shall apply, in 
so far as they are compatible, solely in relation to the appointment conferred, so as 
to allow the simultaneous performance of other work or professional activities. 
8. Honorary judges shall be entitled to the meal voucher on the same basis as 
judicial administrative staff, for each hearing that lasts for more than six hours, as 
evidenced by a specific declaration from the manager of the court. 
9. Honorary magistrates in service on the date of entry into force of this decree 
shall leave the service if they do not submit an application to participate in the 
assessment procedure referred to in paragraph 3.’ 
Article 15a(2) and (3) of decreto-legge del 22 giugno 2023, n. 75 (Decree-Law 
No 75 of 22 June 2023), as converted with amendments by legge del 10 agosto 
2023, n. 112 (Law No 112 of 10 August 2023): 
‘2. The honorary judges of the cohort confirmed in post indefinitely pursuant to 
Article 29 of Legislative Decree No 116 of 13 July 2017, who have opted for the 
exclusive regime, shall be enrolled in the compulsory general insurance scheme 
managed by the Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale [National Social 
Security Institute, Italy; ‘the INPS’].  
3. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 5, the honorary judges of 
the cohort confirmed in post indefinitely pursuant to Article 29 of Legislative 
PELAVI 
 
      
Decree No 116 of 13 July 2017, who carry out their duties on a non-exclusive 
basis and are entitled to enrol with the Cassa nazionale di previdenza e assistenza 
forense [lawyers’ pension organisation] shall remain enrolled with that 
organisation.’ 
Succinct presentation of the facts and of the essential arguments of the 
parties in the main proceedings 
1 The respondent (the applicant at first instance) has been an honorary judge serving 
at a Tribunale (District Court) on a continuous basis since 14 February 2001. 
2 Since that date, she has held an average of three hearings a week and delivered an 
average of over 200 judgments a year, mainly in criminal cases. She has not held 
any hearings during the annual non-working holiday period (fixed by law from 1 
to 31 August). 
3 She was initially appointed for a three-year term, renewed every four years until 
13 December 2022, when she was confirmed in post until the age of 70. 
4 Prior to that confirmation, she was a member of the Bar Association and was able 
to practise freely as a lawyer in a district other than that of the District Court 
where she served, paying mandatory contributions to the Cassa Nazionale 
Forense, an organisation that provides social security and pensions for lawyers on 
the basis of their income. Given her membership of the Bar Association and her 
enrolment with the Cassa Nazionale Forense, the allowance she received as an 
honorary judge was also subject to contributions to that organisation. 
5 From 14 February 2001 to 13 December 2022, she received an allowance 
determined on the basis of the number of hearings held of EUR 98 per hearing, 
plus an additional EUR 98 in the event that she had to work for more than five 
hours a day. The allowance was not paid during the holiday period. 
6 On the allowances she received as an honorary judge, until 13 December 2022, 
the Ministry paid social security contributions to the Cassa Forense at the rate of 
4% (by way of a ‘supplementary contribution’), while the respondent paid the 
‘personal contribution’, equivalent to 14.5% to 15% of her total net professional 
income (allowances plus income from her work as a lawyer). 
7 In the first-instance proceedings, the honorary judge applied for and was granted 
the status of ‘worker’ under EU law (rather than an ‘employee’ under national 
law). She also asked to be granted the right to receive the same salary as an 
‘ordinary judge’ – that is to say, a professional judge – and for the Ministry of 
Justice to be ordered to pay compensation for misuse of successive fixed-term 
employment relationships, quantified by the District Court as nine months’ salary, 
as stated above. However, the District Court has only granted the right to receive 
payment of previous salaries within the five-year limitation period applicable to 
employee claims. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-253/24 
 
      
8 The Ministry of Justice appealed the decision, disputing the comparability of the 
role of honorary judge with that of a professional judge on various grounds, 
including the absence of a public entrance competition, the lower quality and 
quantity of the work carried out by the honorary judge, and the compatibility of 
the role of honorary judge with other professional activities, unlike the public 
officer. It further disputed that there was misuse of successive fixed-term 
contracts, submitting that each appointment of the honorary judge must be 
considered a new appointment, which the interested party is not automatically 
entitled to, but for which they may indicate a preference. 
9 The respondent contested the allegations and brought a cross-appeal, in which she 
challenged the classification of the claims by the court of first instance as 
employee claims rather than compensation, with the consequent application of the 
five-year limitation period instead of the ten-year limitation period. 
10 During the appeal proceedings, the respondent completed the ‘confirmation 
procedure’ introduced by Law No 234/2021 (Article 1(629) et seq.), which 
allowed honorary judges in service on 1 January 2022 the option of being 
confirmed in post until the age of 70, subject to passing an assessment procedure, 
without the need for renewal or interim confirmation. Honorary judges thus 
confirmed in post are entitled to a fixed salary – determined on the basis of the 
salary of an administrative officer employed by the ministry – a judicial allowance 
and a meal voucher. The salary is also paid during the non-working holiday 
period, when they do not work. If honorary judges who are confirmed in post 
decide to work exclusively in that role, they are removed from the register of 
lawyers and the Cassa Forense and are eligible for the employee pension scheme 
by registering with the INPS (Article 15a of Decree-Law No 75/2023, as 
converted by Law No 112/2023). If they opt to maintain their registration with the 
Cassa Forense (and thus retain the option of practising as a lawyer), they continue 
to pay contributions to the Cassa Forense on the income they earn as a lawyer. 
11 To obtain the confirmation, the respondent had to undergo an oral examination on 
a practical case in the field in which she previously worked as an honorary judge. 
The respondent was confirmed in post by decree of the Ministro della Giustizia 
(Minister for Justice) of 13 December 2022 and opted to work exclusively as an 
honorary judge. In such a situation, the provisions that exclude (i) the 
establishment of a public employment relationship, (ii) the maximum commitment 
of two days a week, and (iii) the temporary nature of the appointment (Article 1(3) 
of Legislative Decree No 116/2017) do not apply to the honorary judge. 
12 The law provides that the request to participate in the assessment procedure for 
confirmation in post, regardless of its outcome, entails the waiver of any other 
rights previously accrued. It also provides that failure to submit the application 
terminates the appointment as honorary judge for those who have served in that 
capacity for more than four years, with the right to an indemnity based on the 
number of years’ service.  
PELAVI 
 
      
13 After the respondent had been confirmed in post, the Ministry requested that the 
subject matter of the dispute be declared terminated. The respondent objected, 
asking the referring court to raise the question of constitutional legitimacy 
regarding the abovementioned waiver ex lege of the rights previously accrued, on 
the ground that it infringed various provisions of the Italian Constitution in 
relation to Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-term Work, 
concluded on 18 March 1999 and annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 
28 March 1999.  
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
14 The referring court considers it appropriate to refer the first question to the Court 
of Justice, having regard to the direct effect of Article 31(2) of the Charter and 
Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 (see judgment of 9 November 2023, Keolis Agen, 
C-271/22 to C-275/22, EU:C:2023:834), Article 47(1) of the Charter and Clause 4 
of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-term Work (see judgment of 15 April 
2008, Impact, C-286/06, EU:C:2008:223; ‘the judgment in Impact’), from which 
the national judicial authority derives the power/duty to disapply the conflicting 
domestic legislation. For the second question, however, to ensure the reasonable 
duration of the proceedings, the referring court considers the reference for a 
preliminary ruling appropriate in relation to Clause 5(1) of the Framework 
Agreement on Fixed-term Work – even though it does not have direct effect (see 
judgment in Impact) – since the answer to that question would facilitate the 
assessment of the need to inquire of the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court, 
Italy) as to the constitutionality of the domestic rule which is unable to be 
disapplied. 
15 The referring court is aware that infringement proceedings are currently pending 
in the matter of the Italian legislation applicable to honorary judges, initiated by 
the Commission’s letter of formal notice sent to Italy on 15 July 2021, followed 
by another letter of formal notice on 15 July 2022 (after the entry into force of the 
rules at issue in the present case), with a reasoned opinion issued on 14 July 2023. 
16 The referring court takes the view that the subject matter of the present 
proceedings is somewhat different to that of Case C-548/22, currently pending 
before the Court of Justice. It thus considers it appropriate to provide the Court of 
Justice with more factual and legal information on the legal status of honorary 
judges in Italy. 
The respondent’s classification as a ‘worker’ under EU law 
17 In view of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice, particularly in the 
judgments in UX and PG, the referring court considers that the respondent, in 
working as an honorary judge at the District Court, has performed real and 
genuine services which are not purely marginal, taking into account the 
productivity demonstrated in terms of judgments and the number of hearings, and 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-253/24 
 
      
the nature and structure of the allowances provided for honorary judges, which 
can in no way be regarded as the simple reimbursement of expenses, but is closely 
connected to the nature and volume of the services rendered. 
18 The relationship that existed between the respondent and the Ministry of Justice 
until 13 December 2022 was also fixed term: the initial appointment was for three 
years, and then continued to be renewed at four-yearly intervals, until the outcome 
of the confirmation procedure provided for by Article 29 of Legislative Decree 
No 116/2017. Even in the present case, therefore, the end of the relationship was 
‘determined by objective conditions such as reaching a specific date, completing a 
specific task, or the occurrence of a specific event’ (judgment in UX, 
paragraph 131). 
19 On the basis of the evidence highlighted, the referring court considers the 
classification of the respondent as a ‘worker’ for the purposes of the application of 
Article 7 of the Working Time Directive, and as a ‘fixed-term worker’ for the 
purposes of the application of the framework agreement, to be correct. 
20 The right to paid leave – at least for the minimum period of four weeks a year – 
which the respondent may rely on directly, derives from Article 7 of the Working 
Time Directive, which gives concrete expression to the right enshrined in 
Article 31(2) of the Charter (see judgment of 9 November 2023, Keolis Agen, 
C-271/22 to C-275/22, paragraph 28). 
21 As regards employment conditions, Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement 
prohibits differences in treatment of the respondent from permanent workers in a 
comparable situation, unless they are justified by objective reasons. 
22 However, the referring court, like the court of first instance, rules out the existence 
of ‘subordination’ under domestic law, which gives access to a wider and more 
generalised range of protections than those recognised by EU law (for example, in 
relation to the termination of the relationship), which remains subject to national 
rules. 
Remuneration 
23 On the basis of several aspects examined by the Court of Justice in the judgment 
in PG (paragraphs 42 and 53) regarding the comparability of magistrates with 
ordinary judges and the existence of objective grounds for differentiation, mainly 
due to differences in qualifications and duties and the conditions of admission to 
judicial office, the referring court finds that the respondent is not comparable to an 
ordinary judge for remuneration purposes.  
Leave 
24 The referring court observes that it is common ground between the parties that the 
respondent did not hold any hearings during the annual non-working holiday 
PELAVI 
 
      
period (from 1 to 31 August), nor could she have done, since by law, the normal 
activity of the District Court was suspended during that period. It is also common 
ground that, until her confirmation in post on 13 December 2022, the respondent 
had not been paid during that period. That circumstance alone is incompatible 
with the right to leave granted to the respondent as a ‘worker’. 
25 Since those two rights (the right to take leave and the right to payment of leave) 
must be considered intrinsically linked, the right to payment of remuneration 
during the holiday period may not be derogated when transposing EU law into 
national law. No derogation is allowed with regard to Article 7 of the Working 
Time Directive. The right to payment of remuneration during the holiday period, 
provided for by EU law, is therefore binding. As a principle of EU social law, it is 
of particular importance and cannot be interpreted restrictively (see, for example, 
judgments of 22 April 2010, Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols, 
C-486/08, EU:C:2010:215 and of 20 July 2016, Maschek, C-341/15, 
EU:C:2016:576). 
26 The referring court refers to the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular the 
judgment in PG (paragraphs 53 and 54), in which the Court of Justice examined 
the right to leave of magistrates, including in the context of ‘working conditions’, 
regarding the difference in treatment compared with ordinary judges, holding in 
essence that the different methods of recruitment, qualifications required and 
duties are not elements upon which it is possible to base a difference in treatment 
as regards paid leave. 
27 The referring court finds that there is no real need for a different quantification of 
leave for ordinary judges and honorary judges, it being reasonable in both cases 
that such a quantification coincides with the number of days on which normal 
court activity is suspended. The referring court also notes that, under Legislative 
Decree No 116/2017, honorary judges do not work during the holiday period 
unless there are specific official requirements (Article 24), while receiving, from 
the time of ‘perpetuation’ (Article 29), the remuneration provided for during that 
period. 
28 The referring court further observes that, before the entry into force of Article 29 
of Legislative Decree No 116/2017 and the submission of the application for 
confirmation in post until the age of 70, which entails the waiver of any previous 
rights, the respondent, as a ‘worker’ and a ‘fixed-term worker’, would have been 
entitled to have part of her claim granted – namely, the part relating to payment of 
remuneration during the annual holiday period from 1 to 31 August of each year, 
which she benefited from. The referring court points out, for the purposes of the 
Court’s assessment, that the claim liable to be granted does not concern ‘the 
allowance for leave not taken’, which cannot be monetised until the end of the 
relationship, but the remuneration of leave taken during the non-working holiday 
period (subject to the limitation period). 
Pension and social security protection 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-253/24 
 
      
29 The judgment under appeal rejected the respondent’s application to be granted the 
right to a pension and for the Ministry to be ordered to pay social security and 
insurance contributions to the relevant organisations, in addition to compensation 
for the non-payment of contributions, because such a right would presuppose the 
recognition of a public employment relationship with the Ministry, which was not 
sought in the present case. 
30 By reference to the judgment in PG, the referring court recalls that Clause 4 of the 
framework agreement (i) makes inadmissible the ‘exclusion of magistrates … 
from all forms of pension and social security protection’ (paragraph 53), and (ii) 
precludes national legislation which does not provide an entitlement for the 
magistrate, who may be classified as a fixed-term worker, to a social security and 
pension scheme deriving from the employment relationship, such as that provided 
for ordinary judges, if in a comparable situation to them (paragraph 54). 
31 Since, therefore, Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement is unconditional and 
sufficiently precise for individuals to be able to rely upon it before a national court 
(judgment in Impact, paragraph 2 of the operative part), the national court is 
obliged to cease the discriminatory treatment, if necessary after disapplying the 
domestic rules. 
32 Nevertheless, the referring court notes that the respondent has also received 
pension and social security protection from the Cassa Forense in relation to her 
work as an honorary judge: this form of pension protection is compulsory on 
account of the respondent being entered in the register of lawyers. 
33 The entry in the register of lawyers, and thus the entitlement to a pension from the 
Cassa Forense, stem from the respondent’s decision to continue practising as a 
lawyer in parallel with her work as an honorary judge. Ordinary judges are denied 
this option.  
34 Therefore, since the respondent has received and will receive a form of pension 
protection for her role as an honorary judge, the referring court holds that the 
difference between the conditions of that protection and the protection provided 
for ordinary judges must be considered justified in view of the fact that honorary 
judges who choose to remain in the register of lawyers, and thus in the Cassa 
Forense, may continue to practise law, unlike ordinary judges. 
The first question: doubts as to the compatibility with EU law, and in particular 
Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-term Work, of the deprivation of 
holiday pay for the period prior to confirmation in post 
35 According to the referring court, Article 29(5) of Legislative Decree No 116/2017 
has essentially led to the deprivation ex lege of the respondent’s rights following 
her application to continue working as an honorary judge, as she has done since 
2001. Had the respondent not applied for confirmation in post, her fixed-term 
contract would not have been extended further, and she would not have benefited 
PELAVI 
 
      
from the protections afforded to a permanent worker, even for the short fixed-term 
period remaining. To be eligible for future protections, the respondent thus had to 
waive those previously granted to her. The Court of Justice is therefore asked to 
rule on the compatibility of the deprivation of those indefeasible rights with the 
recognition of those rights for the future period. 
36 Admittedly, as a result of the legislative intervention, the worker has been granted 
the ‘perpetuation’ of her employment relationship, in addition to protections for 
the future period. However, and unlike the cases examined in the judgments in 
Mascolo and Rossato, the rules at issue here exclude the rights accrued under each 
fixed-term contract, in particular the right to remuneration for leave taken by a 
fixed-term worker, upon their recruitment on a permanent basis. 
37 Lastly, the deprivation ex lege of the right to take action to obtain the protections 
guaranteed by Clause 4 of the framework agreement and by Article 7 of the 
Working Time Directive, upon recruitment on a permanent basis, also raises 
doubts as to the right to an effective remedy for the protection of the rights 
guaranteed by EU law, as provided for by Article 47 of the Charter. The referring 
court further observes that Article 29 of Legislative Decree No 116/2017 entered 
into force in the course of the proceedings, after the Court of Justice delivered the 
judgment in PG, in the light of which the respondent would have had a genuine 
chance of her claim partially succeeding on appeal. 
38 The legislative intervention in question could be understood as a legislative 
amendment with retroactive effect, capable of influencing the outcome of 
proceedings to which the State was a party (through the Ministry of Justice) in the 
State’s favour (since the respondent’s claim for the period prior to perpetuation 
would no longer be viable). In such a case, doubts would arise as to the 
compatibility of that measure (that is to say, the deprivation of previous rights), 
which appears to have no purpose other than to limit public spending, with the 
principles of due process. That argument is supported by the case-law of the 
European Court of Human Rights in relation to Article 6 ECHR and the 
incompatibility with that article of retroactive legislation that influences the 
outcome of litigation to which the State was a party, in the absence of compelling 
public interest reasons other than the needs of the public finances (see ECtHR, 
Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others v. Italy, applications nos. 
48357/07 and others, judgment of 24 June 2014). Article 47 of the Charter, like 
Article 6 ECHR, protects the right to due process and equality of arms, and can 
also be read in the light of the latter, considering that under Article 52 of the 
Charter, in so far as it contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the 
ECHR, the meaning and scope of those rights are (at least) the same as those laid 
down by the said Convention. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-253/24 
 
      
The second question: on the perpetuation procedure as a measure aimed at 
penalising the misuse of successive fixed-term employment relationships 
39 The referring court also has doubts as to the ability of the perpetuation procedure 
to fulfil the Member State’s obligations under Clause 5 of the framework 
agreement. It notes that the respondent has served for more than 21 years under 
successive fixed-term appointments. The judgment in PG (in which the 
confirmation procedure provided for in Article 29 of Legislative Decree 
No 116/2017 was not examined) stated that ‘Clause 5(1) of the framework 
agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to 
Directive 1999/70, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant 
to which a fixed-term employment relationship can be renewed a maximum of 
three times successively, each renewal being for a duration of 4 years, for a total 
duration that does not exceed 16 years, and which does not provide for the 
possibility of penalising in an effective and dissuasive way the abusive 
continuance of the employment relationship’. 
40 The perpetuation procedure under discussion is proposed as a remedial measure in 
response to requests from the European Commission, particularly following the 
judgment in UX. If it meets the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice for 
compliance with the framework agreement, the procedure would thus represent an 
‘effective measure to prevent and, where relevant, punish the abuse of successive 
fixed-term contracts’ (judgment of 7 March 2018, Santoro, C-494/16, 
EU:C:2018:166, cited in PG). 
41 In the event of non-confirmation, provision is made for payment of an allowance 
(of EUR 2 500 before tax or EUR 1 500, as the case may be, for each year of 
service rendered). It could thus be considered that the misuse of successive fixed-
term relationships is penalised either by confirmation in post until the age of 70, 
or by payment of the allowance. 
42 However, each of these scenarios – failing the assessment procedure and receiving 
the allowance, or passing the assessment procedure and being confirmed in post – 
entails the waiver of any rights accrued under the previous honorary relationship, 
including the right to paid leave, as discussed in the first question. 
43 Two doubts therefore arise as regards the assessment procedure provided for in 
Article 29(4) of Legislative Decree No 116/2017: 
1. Whether the assessment procedure, which leads to either confirmation or 
non-confirmation in post, is sufficiently certain, non-fortuitous or unpredictable 
for the purposes of the transformation of the relationship, so as to be an effective 
penalty for the misuse of successive fixed-term relationships; 
2. In the event that the assessment procedure is considered sufficiently certain 
because, in the event of non-confirmation, the payment of an allowance is 
envisaged, whether the overall measure can be considered a penalty that is 
PELAVI 
 
      
sufficiently effective and a sufficient deterrent for the abuse of fixed-term 
relationships, given that it entails the waiver of any previous rights.  
44 The referring court is aware that its task is to determine whether the 
abovementioned provisions of national law are an appropriate measure for 
preventing and, where necessary, penalising the misuse of successive fixed-term 
employment contracts or relationships. It notes, however, that the Court of Justice, 
when giving a preliminary ruling, may provide clarification designed to give the 
national court guidance in its assessment (Mascolo, paragraphs 82 and 83).