Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:198
Date: 2026-03-12
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-597/24 – 1 
Case C-597/24 [Zirvatta] 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: 
16 September 2024 
Referring court: 
Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
10 September 2024 
Appellant: 
C.M. 
Respondent: 
Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal on a point of law against a judgment on an appeal on the merits, seeking to 
establish the right of a teacher with a disability to mobility to a chosen territory – 
Alleged infringement of Directive 2000/78/EC 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of Article 2(2)(b)(i) and Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC, 
pursuant to Article 267 TFEU 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must Article 5 (‘Reasonable accommodation for disabled persons’) of 
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general 
 
i The name of the present case is fictitious. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-597/24 
 
2  
framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation be interpreted 
as precluding national legislation, such as the Italian legislation contained in 
the Contratto Collettivo Nazionale Integrativo concernente la mobilità del 
personale docente, educativo ed A.T.A. [(Supplementary national collective 
agreement concerning the mobility of teaching, educational and 
administrative, technical and auxiliary staff)] for the academic year 
2017/2018, which, by reason of the combined provisions of its Article 6(2) 
and Article 13(1) grants the priority referred to in Article 13(1)(III)(1) to the 
disabled school staff referred to in Article 21 of Law No 104/92, mentioned 
in Article 601 of Legislative Decree No 297/94, making mobility within a 
province take precedence over mobility between provinces? 
2. Within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b)(i) of Directive 2000/78, is the 
particular disadvantage at which teachers with a disability [amounting to 
incapacity] of more than two thirds may be put by the above-mentioned 
national provisions objectively justified by a legitimate aim, ensuring that 
highly complex territorial mobility operations which involve the whole of 
the national territory are carried out by the beginning of the school year, and 
are the means of achieving that aim appropriate, not going beyond what is 
necessary to attain the objective pursued by the legislation and agreements? 
Or, on the contrary, does the above-mentioned legislation discriminate 
against the above-mentioned teachers, resulting in the de facto loss of the 
priority granted in mobility procedures, because the procedures relate only 
to mobility within a province, and not between provinces, and thus the 
priority is not absolute (as is provided for in the case of other categories of 
persons with disabilities)? 
International and European Union Law and main case-law of the Court of 
Justice 
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Articles 1 
and 2 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Articles 21 and 26 
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general 
framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation: Article 2(2) and 
Article 5 as well as Article 3(1) 
Judgments in Cases C-312/11, C-354/13, C-270/16 and C-485/20 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Decreto legislativo del 16 aprile 1994, n. 297 – Approvazione del testo unico delle 
disposizioni legislative vigenti in materia di istruzione, relative alle scuole di ogni 
ordine e grado (Legislative Decree No 297 of 16 April 1994 – Approval of the 
ZIRVATTA 
 
3 
Consolidated Law on education, relating to schools of every type or level (GURI 
No 115 of 19 May 2024)):  
Article 465: ‘1. Until the provisions of Article 470(1) are implemented, transfers 
within a province shall be arranged prior to transfers from another province.’ 
Article 470: ‘1. Specific contractual agreements between the trade unions and the 
Ministry of Public Education shall lay down deadlines and procedures for 
achieving [occupational mobility]’. 
Article 601: ‘1. Articles 21 and 33 of [Law No 104/1992] shall apply to the staff 
referred to in this Consolidated Law. 
2. The above-mentioned provisions entail priority […] in terms of mobility.’ 
Legge del 5 febbraio 1992, n. 104 – Legge-quadro per l’assistenza, l’integrazione 
sociale e i diritti delle persone handicappate: (Law No 104 of 5 February 1992 – 
Framework law on assistance for, social inclusion and the rights of persons with 
disabilities (GURI No 39 of 17 February 1992): 
Article 21: ‘A person with a disability amounting to a degree of incapacity of 
more than two thirds or with impairments [of certain types], who is employed at 
public bodies as a successful candidate in a competition or on some other basis, 
shall be entitled to have a priority right of choice from among the available 
locations. 
The persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall take precedence as far as transfers are 
concerned, upon application.’ 
Article 33: ‘6. A person of legal age with a disability who is in a serious situation 
[…] shall have the right to choose, as far as possible, the place of work nearest to 
his or her home and may not be transferred to another location without his or her 
consent.’ 
Contratto Collettivo Nazionale di Lavoro (CCNL) relativo al personale del 
Comparto Scuola, del 29 novembre 2007 (National collective labour agreement 
for the schools sector (‘the CCNL for schools’) of 29 November 2007): 
Article 10: ‘The criteria and detailed rules for implementing the territorial 
mobility […] of the staff covered by this agreement shall be laid down in 
supplementary national bargaining […].’ 
Contratto Collettivo Nazionale Integrativo concernente la mobilità del personale 
docente, educativo ed A.T.A. per l’anno scolastico 2017/2018 (Supplementary 
national collective agreement concerning the mobility of teaching, educational and 
administrative, technical and auxiliary staff for the academic year 2017/2018): 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-597/24 
 
4  
Article 6: ‘Mobility within a province shall be arranged prior to mobility between 
provinces […]’. 
Article 13: ‘The priorities set out in this Article shall be systematically grouped by 
category and shall be functionally placed, in the following order of priority, only 
in the territorial mobility operations for which they apply, with the sole exception 
of point (I) [concerning school teaching staff who are blind and staff on dialysis] 
[…]: 
[…] 
(III) Staff with disabilities and staff requiring special continuing care 
In the context of transfer procedures, priority shall be granted, in this order, to 
school staff in the following circumstances: 
(1) disabled persons as referred to in Article 21 of Law No 104/92, 
mentioned in Article 601 of Legislative Decree No 297/94, with a 
degree of incapacity of more than two thirds or with impairments [of 
certain types] 
(2) […] 
The staff referred to in point 1 […] may benefit from that priority within and for 
the province in which their municipality of residence is situated, provided that 
they have expressed as their first preference either one or more educational 
establishments included in that municipality or the area corresponding to that 
municipality or to a part of it, if they wish to express preferences in respect of 
schools in other municipalities or other areas or provinces. […]’. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 In the context of the national mobility programme organised by the Ministry of 
Education, University and Research, now the Ministry of Education and Merit, for 
the 2018/19 school year, C.M., a teacher in a secondary school in a town in the 
province of Mantova (Italy), requested a transfer of location to the province of 
Catanzaro (Italy). As evidence of her priority right to a transfer, C.M. relied on the 
fact that she suffers from disabilities, with a permanent reduction in her work 
capacity of 70 %. Article 21 of Law No 104/1992 provides that persons with a 
disability amounting to a degree of incapacity of more than two thirds take 
precedence in terms of transfers. 
2 The request was rejected on the ground that there were no posts in the requested 
location, which had already been allocated within the province, that is to say for 
internal transfers within the province of Catanzaro. 
ZIRVATTA 
 
5 
3 C.M. brought an action before the Tribunale di Mantova (District Court, Mantova, 
Italy) and then, at second instance, before the Corte d’appello di Brescia (Court of 
Appeal, Brescia, Italy), seeking a finding that she was entitled to mobility. 
4 On the basis of the provisions of the CCNL for schools governing the system of 
priorities in respect of transfers, the Court of Appeal, Brescia, held that it is 
possible to take account of the priorities claimed by applicants for transfer 
between provinces only after examining all the applications for mobility within 
the province and having taken into account, in the allocation of the locations 
available, of the priorities of applicants for transfer within the province. Only 
teachers who are blind or teachers on dialysis have absolute priority and 
precedence in respect of all transfers, including between regions. 
5 C.M. brought an appeal on a point of law against the judgment on appeal before 
the referring court. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
6 The appellant complained that the system of mobility within State schools, 
according to which transfers requested within the province are examined in an 
initial phase, and only thereafter transfers between different provinces, applying 
within each phase the priority factors relied on by the applicants for the transfer – 
in the present case, a degree of incapacity of more than two thirds – nullified the 
protection granted to the persons with disabilities under Article 21(2) of Law 
No 104/1992. Such persons, she argues, can compete only for the remaining posts, 
unlike teachers who are blind and those on dialysis. 
7 As a result of the above-mentioned order used for the phases of mobility, when 
considering applications for mobility between provinces the posts initially put up 
for competition may have already been filled, as a result of requests for mobility 
within the province submitted by teachers already working there, thus rendering 
the priority granted devoid of any meaning. According to the appellant, her status 
as a person with disabilities should result in the request for mobility being 
examined as a matter of absolute priority. 
8 The respondent ministry contended that the action should be dismissed on the 
ground that the right to a transfer is subject to the availability of posts within the 
requested territory. In the present case, the right of precedence had been granted to 
the teacher, but her request for mobility between provinces had not been accepted 
because there were no vacant posts in the requested location. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
9 The appellant’s employment relationship, as a worker employed under an 
employment contract and a public school teacher, comes within the scope of 
Directive 2000/78. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-597/24 
 
6  
10 National legislation (in particular Article 21 of Law No 104/1992) and the 
Supplementary national collective agreement (Article 13(1) thereof) grant teachers 
with a disability the right of precedence in terms of mobility. 
11 The system of mobility procedures is structured in phases, pursuant to the 
provisions of the CCNL. Priorities are assessed within each phase. The phase of 
mobility within a province precedes the phase of mobility between provinces. The 
criterion takes into account the organisational need to regulate complex staff 
mobility operations throughout the whole of the national territory in order to 
ensure an optimal start to the school year. 
12 The referring court has doubts as to the compatibility of that legislation with 
Article 2(2)(b)(i) and Article 5 of Directive 2000/78. The apparently neutral 
criterion of the priority of mobility within a province over mobility between 
provinces may put a teacher who finds himself or herself in the circumstances laid 
down in Article 21 of Law No 104/1992 at a particular disadvantage compared 
with teachers who do not find themselves in such circumstances, since the posts 
available progressively reduce in number.