Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:341
Date: 2025-05-08
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Social Policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Translation C-212/24 – 1 
Case C-212/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
19 March 2024 
Referring court: 
Corte di Appello di Firenze (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
8 January 2024 
Appellant: 
L.T. s.s. 
Respondent: 
Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) 
  
LA CORTE DI APPELLO DI FIRENZE 
Sezione lavoro 
[…] 
in the case […] brought by L.T. s.s […] 
appellant in referral proceedings 
v 
ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DELLA PREVIDENZA SOCIALE – INPS […] 
respondent in referral proceedings 
referral proceedings following the order of the Corte di Cassazione-Sezione 
Lavoro n. […] (Court of Cassation – Labour Division, Italy) of 27 April 2022. 
[…] has made the following 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 1. 2024– CASE C-212/24 
 
2  
ORDER FOR REFERENCE TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE 
EUROPEAN UNION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE 
INTERPRETATION OF EU LAW (ART. 267 TFEU) 
THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE COURT 
1 The subject matter of the proceedings is the opposition brought by L.T. s.s. 
against debit notice no […] issued by the INPS (the Italian National Social 
Welfare Institution) in December 2013, containing an order to pay disparities in 
contributions and civil penalties in relation to fixed-term agricultural workers 
employed by L.T. in the first quarter of 2007, for whom the contributions had 
been calculated by the company on the basis of the hours actually worked and not 
on the basis of the daily working time of 6.30 hours established by the Contratto 
Collettivo Nazionale di Lavoro (National Collective Labour Agreement, ‘CCNL’). 
2 The Corte di Appello di Firenze – Sezione Lavoro (Court of Appeal – Labour 
Division, Florence, Italy), […] reversing the judgment of the Tribunale di 
Grosseto (District Court, Grosseto, Italy), dismissed the opposition and held that 
the claim made by means of the debit notice was well founded, on the ground that 
the pay of fixed-term agricultural workers should be calculated on the basis of 
6.30 hours of work per day and not on the basis of the hours actually worked. 
3 The Court of Cassation – Labour Division, […] referred the case back to this 
Court of Appeal, stating the following principle of law: ‘The social security 
contributions payable by agricultural employers on the wages paid to fixed-term 
agricultural workers must be calculated, in accordance with the combined 
provisions of Article 1(1) of decreto legge n. 338/1989 (Decree Law No 338/1989) 
and Article 40 of the CCNL of 6 July 2006, exclusively on the hours actually 
worked, unless it appears in practice that, in the event of interruptions due to 
force majeure, the employer has ordered the worker to remain on the premises at 
his disposal.’ 
In short, according to the Court of Cassation: 
– Article 30(1) of the CCNL of 6 July 2006 for agricultural workers and 
floriculturists, which provides that ‘working time is set at 39 hours per week, 
i.e. 6.30 hours per day’, merely indicates the maximum normal weekly and 
daily working time, but says nothing about the minimum working time 
– Article 40(1) of that CCNL, by providing that ‘a fixed-term worker shall be 
entitled to payment for the hours actually worked during the day’, lays down a 
rule which is logically incompatible with the concept of weekly and daily 
working time, as it means that the remuneration due is not tied to reference to 
pre-established working hours that are identifiable in general and abstract 
terms; 
– that provision, based on the specific nature of fixed-term agricultural work, is 
entirely consistent with Article 16(1)(g) of decreto legislativo. n. 66/2003 
L.T. 
 
3 
(Legislative Decree No 66/2003), which, in implementing 
Directives 93/104/EC and 2000/34/EC, provides that fixed-term agricultural 
workers are excluded from the scope of the rules on normal weekly working 
time; 
– […] [other considerations not relevant to the question referred] 
– Article 1(1) of Decree Law No 338/1989 – as regards contributions – provides 
that the pay to be taken as the basis for calculating social security and welfare 
contributions may not be lower than the rate of pay set by laws, regulations, 
collective agreements concluded by the most representative trade union 
organisations at national level, or by collective agreements or individual 
contracts (and for fixed-term agricultural workers, the pay due under the 
collective agreement is in fact that due on the basis of the hours worked); 
– nor can a contradictory conclusion be reached regarding the calculation of 
contributions on the hours actually worked, ‘in the light of the Community 
case-law cited in the judgment under appeal concerning the prohibition of […] 
discrimination against fixed-term workers laid down in Clause 4 of 
Directive 99/70/EC, since … that prohibition concerns the employment 
relationship between the parties and can, at most, legitimise any claims from 
the worker to receive more than he has actually been paid, but certainly does 
not allow the social security institution to make a different, larger claim in 
relation to social security contributions, as the question of a worker’s social 
security relationship does not fall within the scope of the provisions of EU 
law’. 
4 The company resumed the proceedings, requesting, in accordance with the 
principle of law formulated by the Court of Cassation, that the debit notice which 
is the subject of the opposition be annulled on the ground that it had already paid 
the contribution for the fixed-term agricultural workers, calculated on the basis of 
the hours actually worked. 
5 The INPS, which lodged a defence in the referral proceedings, has asked whether 
the principle of law formulated by the Court of Cassation is consistent with the 
prohibition of discrimination laid down in Clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC 
concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, 
UNICE and CEEP, which provides, in the first paragraph: ‘In respect of 
employment conditions, fixed-term workers shall not be treated in a less 
favourable manner than comparable permanent workers solely because they have 
a fixed-term contract or relation, unless different treatment is justified on 
objective grounds.’ 
According to the INPS, if it were considered that contributions in respect of fixed-
term agricultural workers must be paid with regard to remuneration calculated on 
the basis of the hours actually worked (as provided for in Article 40 of the CCNL) 
and not on the basis of the 6.30 hours of working time per day which applies to 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 1. 2024– CASE C-212/24 
 
4  
agricultural workers engaged for an indefinite period (as provided for in Article 30 
of the CCNL), irrespective of the hours worked, despite the fact that they perform 
the same tasks, this would leave the former workers with less favourable social 
security conditions, with regard to both the contributions payable by the employer 
and the social security benefits recognised by the INPS, which, in so far as they 
are based on contributions, are likely to be lower than those from which the latter 
workers will be able to benefit. 
Furthermore, while the function of the principle of non-discrimination is to ensure 
that the use of a fixed-term employment contract does not adversely affect the 
situation of the worker concerned by placing him in an unfavourable position with 
respect to a worker engaged for an indefinite period, the expression ‘employment 
conditions’ in Clause 4 referred to must not be understood in a restrictive sense, 
limited solely to the conditions applied by the employer, but in a broader sense, 
encompassing all the legal effects which influence the substantive legal position 
of the worker and the employer, including therefore the social security position, 
regarding both the amount of the contributions and the corresponding amount of 
social security benefits, during or after the termination of the relationship. 
The INPS has therefore requested this Court to stay the proceedings and to refer 
the following questions to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
[…] [questions similar to those subsequently referred by the national court] 
In substance, upon the conclusion of the preliminary ruling proceedings, it has 
requested that the opposing party’s appeal be dismissed as unfounded in fact and 
in law. 
6 By subsequent documents lodged on 30 June 2023, L.T. asked that the request for 
a preliminary ruling be rejected […] 
– […] because the compulsory social security contribution does not fall within 
the objective scope of Directive 1999/70/EC and because the Directive does not 
have horizontal, but only vertical, direct effect and therefore cannot be relied 
upon in relations between the INPS and the employer; 
– […] [matters of national procedural law] 
[…] [internal procedure] 
GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION 
7 The referring court, which is called upon to give a ruling in the referral 
proceedings, is required, under national law, to abide by the decision of the Court 
of Cassation, Article 384 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly providing that 
the referring court must comply with the principle of law and, in any event, the 
rulings of the Court (most recently, Court of Cassation Case No 27155/2017 on 
L.T. 
 
5 
the binding effect of the legal principle affirmed by the court with jurisdiction to 
rule on legality). 
8 The subject matter of the proceedings, as they now stand, therefore concerns the 
application to the specific case of the rule that the employer company, the 
appellant, was required to pay contributions for fixed-term agricultural workers on 
the basis of the hours actually worked. 
9 The applicable provisions of national law are those of Article 40 of the CCNL of 
6 July 2006 for agricultural workers and floriculturists, in so far as it provides that 
‘fixed-term workers shall be entitled to payment of hours actually worked during 
the day’, as interpreted by the Court of Cassation, and Article 1(1) of Decree Law 
No 338 of 1989 […], which links the amount of the contributions to the relevant 
pay, according to the rule that the pay to be taken as the basis for calculating 
social security and welfare contributions may not be lower than the remuneration 
amounts set by laws, regulations or collective agreements concluded by the most 
representative trade union organisations at national level, or by other collective 
agreements or individual contracts where this results in a higher amount of pay 
than that provided for in the national collective agreement. According to that 
provision, in accordance with the legal principle laid down by the Court of 
Cassation, in the case of fixed-term agricultural workers, the contribution must be 
paid on the basis of the hours actually worked because it is only in respect of those 
hours that the workers are entitled to pay, in accordance with the collective rules. 
The referring court also points out that Article 30 of the CCNL, which in respect 
of permanent workers provides, by contrast, that ‘working time is set at 39 hours 
per week, i.e. 6.30 hours per day’, with the effect that the employer is required, in 
any event, to pay the worker for that time, even if the performance of services is 
not actually requested, except in cases where work is interrupted due to force 
majeure, and to pay contributions on the corresponding pay. 
10 The referring court doubts whether the principle of law stated by the Court of 
Cassation is consistent with EU law, in particular Clause 4 of 
Directive 1999/70/EC on fixed-term work, and considers that the conditions for a 
reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, as requested by the 
INPS, are met. 
Admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling under national law 
11 […] 
12 […] 
13 […] [national and EU case-law according to which a reference to the Court of 
Justice is admissible] 
Applicability of EU law in the present case 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 1. 2024– CASE C-212/24 
 
6  
14 Furthermore, from a substantive point of view, the Court considers that EU law is 
applicable in the present case, having regard to the principle of non-discrimination 
set out in Clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement 
on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which, in 
paragraph 1, provides: ‘In respect of employment conditions, fixed-term workers 
shall not be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent 
workers solely because they have a fixed-term contract or relation, unless 
different treatment is justified on objective grounds.’ 
15 In the first place, there is the question of ‘employment conditions’, a concept 
which must be understood not restrictively, but in a broad sense as encompassing 
all the benefits the worker receives from the employer by reason of the 
employment relationship and therefore also concerns the amount of pay (Court of 
Justice, 13 September 2007, Case C-307/05, Del Cerro Alonso; Court of Justice, 
12 December 2013, Case C-361/12, Carratù; Court of Justice, 15 April 2008, 
Case C-268/06, Impact). 
According to the judgment in Del Cerro Alonso, ‘the question whether in applying 
the principle of non-discrimination laid down in clause 4(1) of the framework 
agreement, one of the constituent parts of the pay should, as an employment 
condition, be granted to fixed-term workers in the same way as it is to permanent 
workers …[comes] within the scope of Article 137(1)(b) EC and therefore of 
Directive 1999/70 and the framework agreement adopted on that basis’ 
(paragraph 47). Accordingly, the concept of equal treatment in relation to 
‘employment conditions’ must be interpreted as encompassing pay terms, the 
extent of which must undoubtedly be left to the national legal systems, but which 
cannot be determined differently to the detriment of fixed-term workers solely 
because they have a fixed-term contract, unless different treatment is justified on 
objective grounds. 
16 First, in fact, in the present case, the request directly concerns the pay due to 
fixed-term agricultural workers, given that, under national law, contributions, that 
is to say, the consideration claimed by the INPS, are payable on the total amount 
of pay due to the employees. 
17 In addition, from another point of view, it must be held that the term ‘employment 
conditions’ also covers the contributions demanded by the INPS, in so far as they 
are used to pay social security benefits provided by occupational pension schemes, 
that is, benefits which are also covered by the [EU law] concept of pay (see Court 
of Justice, 17 May 1990, Case C-262/88, as well as Court of Justice, 13 November 
2008, Case C-46/07, Commission v Italy and Court of Justice, 15 April 2008, Case 
C-268/06, Impact, which includes in that concept ‘pensions which derive from an 
employment relationship between the worker and the employer, excluding 
statutory social security pensions, which are determined less by a working 
relationship than by considerations of social policy …’). 
L.T. 
 
7 
18 In fact, Directive 2006/54 defines as occupational social security schemes systems 
which provide protection against sickness, invalidity, old age, industrial accidents, 
occupational diseases and unemployment which are not covered by the rules laid 
down in Directive 79/7/EEC (relating to the general social security scheme) and 
the purpose of which is ‘to provide workers, whether employees or self-employed, 
in an undertaking or group of undertakings, area of economic activity, 
occupational sector or group of sectors with benefits intended to supplement the 
benefits provided by statutory social security schemes or to replace them, whether 
membership of such schemes is compulsory or optional’. 
This is a concept which has been consistently adopted by the Courts of the 
European Union, from which it may be inferred that what distinguishes 
occupational social security schemes from the general social security scheme is 
not the welfare objective behind the forms of protection provided or the nature of 
the risks covered, but rather the type of beneficiary and the reasons justifying the 
relationship: social security management schemes provide benefits for all persons, 
in accordance with the law and adopting criteria based on solidarity and support 
for the weakest categories, while occupational schemes provide benefits which are 
complementary to or replace those provided by statutory public security schemes, 
for workers belonging to an enterprise, to an economic branch or occupational 
sector, as an integral part of their employment relationship. 
19 The present case concerns contributions intended for the payment of benefits 
deriving from an employment relationship, the amount of which is proportionate 
to the duration of the employment relationship and which are linked to the amount 
of pay, since the contributions are based on the amount of pay. The consequence 
of this is that a reduction in the amount of pay, resulting in a reduction in the 
amount of the contributions due, also leads to a reduction in the social security 
benefits provided, which is clearly detrimental to individual workers, and also 
increases the costs borne by the community in granting those workers benefits 
which are borne fully by the public security system. 
20 As far as the present case is concerned, another question to be dealt with is 
therefore the benefits which may be paid to a fixed-term agricultural worker who, 
being entitled to pay solely on the basis of the hours actually worked, compared 
with the guarantee given to permanent workers that they will always receive a 
minimum wage fixed by the collective agreement, irrespective of the hours 
actually worked, will undoubtedly be entitled to benefits at a lesser rate. 
21 In any event, there can be no doubt that the present case concerns ‘employment 
conditions’ referred to in Clause 4 of Directive 99/70/EC and that it therefore falls 
within the scope of EU law. 
22 Nor is the agricultural sector excluded from the scope of that Directive. 
23 As regards the purely vertical effect of the Directive, which, according to the 
appellant’s defence, cannot be relied on in a dispute between private individuals, 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 1. 2024– CASE C-212/24 
 
8  
this theory is contradicted, in the first place, by the fact that the directive in 
question was duly implemented by the national law with decreto legislativo 
n. 368/2001 (Legislative Decree No 368/2001), which, in Article 6, also 
incorporates the principle of non-discrimination in the Italian system […], thereby 
also producing a horizontal direct effect on relations between individuals and 
between individuals and organisations. 
24 In the second place, the principle of non-discrimination is a general principle of 
EU law with full direct effect, including that of a horizontal nature, at least in 
cases where it has been clarified in sources of secondary law, as in the present 
case by Directive 99/70/EC (see Court of Justice, Case C-555/07, Kucukdeveci). 
25 Lastly, it must be held that the prohibition contained in the aforementioned Clause 
4.1 has been held to be unconditional and sufficiently precise to dispense with the 
need for measures to implement the directive internally, being subject merely to 
justified grounds based on objective reasons (subject to judicial review, Case 
C-268/06, Impact, p. 65 and 68), which must be understood as referring to 
‘precise and concrete circumstances characterising a given activity’ (Court of 
Justice C-307/05, Del Cerro Alonso, p. 53 to 58). 
26 Having established, therefore, that Clause 4.1 of the Directive in question is 
applicable to the pay of fixed-term agricultural workers and to the related 
contributions, it is considered in practice that the principle of law stated by the 
Court of Cassation regarding the calculation of the contributions which the 
employer must pay on the basis of the hours actually worked leads to an 
infringement of that provision, in so far as it leads to conditions that are less 
favourable than those reserved to permanent agricultural workers, without there 
being any real objective reason. 
27 As regards the comparability between the two categories, there is no doubt and it 
is undisputed that fixed-term agricultural workers performed the same duties as 
those engaged for an indefinite period […]. 
28 As regards the less favourable conditions, it is clear that the application of the 
principle of law formulated by the court with jurisdiction to rule on legality would 
result in fixed-term workers being offered worse conditions than those given to 
comparable permanent workers, given that, in a precarious agricultural 
relationship, and only in such relationships, the employer would be free to 
determine unilaterally the content of the reciprocal obligations of the parties, those 
relating to work and those relating to pay, and consequently the amount of 
contributions, and subsequently, the rate of social security benefits, whereas 
permanent workers are in any event entitled to a minimum daily wage, calculated 
on the basis of 6.30 hours, irrespective of the work actually carried out, with the 
resulting effects in terms of contributions and the corresponding benefits paid by 
the INPS. 
L.T. 
 
9 
29 As regards the absence of objective reasons for the difference in the conditions 
applied, it should be noted that neither of the parties describes the objective 
reasons, which refer to ‘precise and concrete circumstances characterising a 
given activity’ (Court of Justice C-307/05, Del Cerro Alonso, p. 53 to 58), 
whereas, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, that concept requires 
that the difference in conditions be justified by the existence of ‘precise and 
concrete factors characterising the employment condition in the particular context 
in which it occurs and on the basis of objective and transparent criteria, in order 
to ensure that that difference meets a genuine need, is appropriate for attaining 
the objective pursued and is necessary for that purpose’ (Court of Justice, 
19 October 2023, Case C-660/20). 
30 In the present case, there are no objective circumstances connected with the 
performance of the service or precise and concrete factors from which it may be 
concluded that the difference in the conditions applied to fixed-term workers is 
actually necessary, given also that the risks inherent in agricultural activity, due to 
the particular impact of unforeseeable weather conditions, concern the general 
nature of the services, without the type of employment contract having any 
relevance whatsoever. 
ON THESE GROUNDS 
The Court 
Having regard to Article 267 TFEU 
refers the following questions of interpretation to the European Court of Justice 
for a preliminary ruling: 
(1) Must Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement be interpreted as precluding a 
provision of a national collective agreement, such as that contained in Article 40 
of the CCNL [national collective labour agreement] for agricultural workers and 
floriculturists of 6 July 2006, as interpreted by the Court of Cassation in a manner 
that is binding on the referring court, which recognises, with regard to fixed-term 
agricultural workers, the right to be paid for the hours actually worked during the 
day, in contrast to Article 30 of the CCNL, which precedes it, which, in respect of 
permanent agricultural workers, recognises the right to pay on the basis of a 
working day of 6.30 hours? 
(2) If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, must Clause 4(1) 
of the framework agreement be interpreted as meaning that the determination of 
the amount of the compulsory social security contribution payable in respect of 
fixed-term agricultural workers under an occupational social security scheme also 
falls within the definition of employment conditions, with the result that it must be 
determined on the basis of the same criterion as that laid down for permanent 
agricultural workers and therefore on the basis of the daily working time 
established in the collective agreement, and not on the basis of the hours actually 
worked? 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 1. 2024– CASE C-212/24 
 
10  
Stays the proceedings until the publication of the decision of the Court of Justice 
on those questions. 
Orders the Court Registry to forward this order to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union […]. 
[…] 
Florence, 8 January 2024 
[…]