Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:267
Date: 2026-03-26
Language of the case: Romanian

Summary C-706/23 – 1 
Case C-706/23 
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: 
17 November 2023 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel Iași (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
10 October 2023 
Appellant and defendant: 
Școala gimnazială ‘Mihai Eminescu’ Vaslui 
Respondent and applicant: 
Uniunea Sindicală ‘Didactica’ Vaslui, for and on behalf of the 
following members: 
KM and Others 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal against the judgment of the Tribunalul Vaslui (Regional Court, Vaslui, 
Romania), by which the appellant and defendant (‘the defendant’) was ordered to 
pay members of the trade union (‘the workers at issue’), represented by the 
respondent and applicant Uniunea Sindicală ‘Didactica’ Vaslui (Vaslui Teachers’ 
Trade Union; the ‘applicant’), holiday pay and meal allowances relating to part-
time, fixed-term employment contracts entered into with the defendant. The 
question at the heart of the dispute is whether the workers at issue are entitled to 
such allowances where, during the same period, they have also entered into full-
time employment contracts of indefinite duration and have received holiday pay 
and meal allowances in relation to those contracts. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-706/23 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
On the basis of Article 267 TFEU, the Court is asked for an interpretation of 
Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 
97/81/EC, Clause 4.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded 
by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC, Article 7(1) of 
Directive 2003/88/EC and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Are Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, Article 31(2) of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Clause 4[.1] of the Framework 
Agreement on part-time work, annexed to Directive 97/81/EC, [and] Clause 4[.1] 
of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and 
CEEP, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, to be 
interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where a worker 
has multiple employment contracts in the field of teaching in schools – [namely] a 
full-time contract of indefinite duration [in relation to] the basic post held and a 
part-time fixed-term contract[, that is to say] a contract with hourly pay – the 
worker is entitled to remuneration in respect of paid leave calculated in relation to 
the basic post only? 
2. Are Clause 4[.1] of the Framework Agreement on part-time work, annexed 
to Directive 97/81/EC, Clause 4[.1] of the framework agreement on fixed-term 
work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, annexed to Council Directive 
1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, to be 
interpreted as precluding national laws and practices which, where schoolteachers 
have multiple employment contracts – [namely] a full-time contract in relation to 
the basic post held and a part-time fixed-term contract[, that is to say, a] contract 
with hourly pay – prevent a meal allowance from being granted in proportion to 
the actual time worked under the part-time fixed-term contract and prevent that 
allowance from being included in the calculation of paid annual leave? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 31(2) 
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 
Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and 
CEEP, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, Clause 4.1 
ȘCOALA GIMNAZIALĂ ‘MIHAI EMINESCU’ 
 
3 
Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the 
ETUC, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997, Clause 4.1 
Judgment of 19 November 2019, TSN (C-609/17 and C-610/17, EU:C:2019:981); 
judgment of 9 December 2021, Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Remuneration 
during paid annual leave) (C-217/20, EU:C:2021:987, paragraphs 19 and 26-28); 
judgment of 10 June 2010, Bruno and Others (C-395/08 and C-396/08, 
EU:C:2010:329, paragraphs 24 and 32-34); judgment of 14 September 2016, de 
Diego Porras (C-596/14, EU:C:2016:683); judgment of 13 September 2007, Del 
Cerro Alonso (C-307/05, EU:C:2007:509, paragraphs 57 and 58); judgment of 
17 March 2021, Academia de Studii Economice din București (C-585/19, 
EU:C:2021:210); judgment of 5 November 2014, Österreichischer 
Gewerkschaftsbund (C-476/12, EU:C:2014:2332, paragraph 16); judgment of 
11 November 2015, Greenfield (C-219/14, EU:C:2015:745) 
Provisions of national law and case-law relied on 
Law on National Education No 1 of 5 January 2011 
Article 254(1): ‘In schools, teaching staff (…) may be hired on an individual 
employment contract of indefinite duration or for a fixed term for a period not 
exceeding one school year, with the option of extending the contract, or on an 
hourly basis, according to the conditions provided for by law’. 
Article 267(1): ‘Teachers shall be entitled to 62 working days of paid annual leave 
during school holidays; (…)’. 
Romanian Labour Code 
Article 35(1): ‘Every employee has the right to work for several employers or for 
the same employer, under individual employment contracts, without their working 
hours overlapping, receiving the corresponding pay for each of them. No 
employer may treat unfavourably any employee who exercises that right’. 
Article 106: ‘1. An employee hired on a part-time contract shall enjoy the 
same rights as a full-time employee, under the conditions determined by the law 
and by applicable collective bargaining agreements. 
2. Salary rights shall be recognised in proportion to the actual working time, in 
relation to the rights established for ordinary working hours’. 
Article 144(1): ‘All employees are guaranteed the right to paid annual leave’. 
Article 150: ‘1. During holiday periods, employees shall be entitled to 
holiday pay, which shall not be less than their basic salary, and to allowances and 
benefits of a permanent nature due for that period, as provided for in their 
individual employment contract. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-706/23 
 
4  
2. Holiday pay shall be equal to the daily average of the salary rights referred 
to in paragraph 1 during the three months prior to the month in which the leave is 
taken, multiplied by the number of days of leave’. 
Framework Law No 153 of 28 June 2017 on the remuneration of staff paid from 
public funds  
Article 18: ‘1. From 1 December 2018, authorising officers shall be required to 
pay a monthly meal allowance equal to one twelfth of two guaranteed gross 
national minimum basic salaries (…). 
2. The meal allowance referred to in paragraph 1 shall be granted in proportion 
to the actual working time during the previous month, according to the 
classification provided for in Article 25(1). 
…’. 
Annex I, Section B, of that law, entitled ‘Specific provisions for schoolteachers’, 
provides as follows: 
Article 11: ‘Teaching staff shall be entitled to holiday, pursuant to Law 
No 1/2011, (…) receiving holiday pay calculated in accordance with the 
provisions of the law applicable to staff paid from public funds’. 
Article 12(1): ‘Teaching staff (…) may also be paid on an hourly basis or on a 
cumulative basis, in accordance with the provisions of Law No 1/2011 (…)’. 
Decree No 4165 of 24 July 2018 of the Ministry of National Education, ratifying 
the implementing rules for the preparation of the classification project and the 
classification plan for schoolteachers and for the classification of schoolteachers 
under the system of hourly pay. 
Article 6(2): ‘The specific duties of teaching staff on hourly pay shall be set out in 
the individual employment contract – as distinct from the contract for the basic 
post – for the provision of teaching under the system of hourly pay’. 
Decree No 5559 of 7 October 2011 of the Ministry of Education, Research, 
Youth and Sport, ratifying the implementing rules for the use of leave by 
schoolteachers. 
Article 5: ‘1. In-service teachers who also work under a system of hourly pay 
shall be entitled to paid leave only for the basic post for which the employment 
contract was entered into. 
2. Retired teaching staff hired on a fixed-term employment contract under a 
system of hourly pay, on a full-time or part-time basis, shall be entitled to leave in 
proportion to the actual time worked, calculated in accordance with Article 2(5)’. 
ȘCOALA GIMNAZIALĂ ‘MIHAI EMINESCU’ 
 
5 
Decree No 4050 of 29 June 2021 of the Ministry of National Education, ratifying 
the implementing rules for the use of leave by teaching, management, 
administration and supervisory staff and research personnel in the state education 
sector. 
Article 3: ‘2. Teachers who have performed teaching activities for part of the 
school/academic year shall be entitled to leave for a duration calculated in 
proportion to the period for which they worked during that school/academic year. 
…  
5. Teachers on part-time working hours shall be entitled to leave in proportion 
to the actual time worked, calculated on the basis of paragraphs 2 to 4. Teachers 
employed on a part-time basis in two or more schools shall be entitled to leave 
from each school, in proportion to the time worked’. 
Article 5: ‘1. In-service teachers who also work under a system of hourly pay 
shall be entitled to paid leave only for the basic post for which the individual 
employment contract was entered into. 
2. Retired teaching staff hired on an employment contract under a system of 
hourly pay, on a full-time or part-time basis, shall be entitled to leave in 
proportion to the actual time worked, calculated in accordance with the provisions 
of Article 3’. 
Decision No 297 of 6 May 2021 of the Curtea Constituțională din România 
(Constitutional Court, Romania), Decision No 5 of 20 January 2020 of the Înalta 
Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania), Civil 
Judgment No 476 of 18 May 2023 of the Tribunalul Arad (Regional Court, Arad, 
Romania) and Civil Judgment No 663 of 9 June 2023 of the Tribunalul Galați 
(Regional Court, Galați, Romania). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The workers at issue are members of the teaching staff of the defendant, which is 
a secondary school. The workers have entered into full-time employment 
contracts of indefinite duration with the defendant and, in one case, with an upper-
secondary school. 
2 At the same time, during the school years 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 
2022-2023, the workers at issue also entered into part-time, fixed-term 
employment contracts with the defendant for periods ranging from 2 to 20 hours 
per week, under the system of hourly pay. Chapter 1 of those contracts, entitled 
‘Leave’, provides that, ‘in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Code 
(…), leave shall be granted only for the basic post (…)’. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-706/23 
 
6  
3 The defendant calculated the holiday pay and meal allowances of the workers at 
issue for the period in question solely in relation to income from their full-time 
employment contracts of indefinite duration, in accordance with Decrees Nos 
5559/2011 and 4050/2021 of the Ministry of National Education. 
4 The workers at issue, represented by the applicant, brought an action before the 
Regional Court of Vaslui, requesting that the defendant be ordered to grant 
holiday pay and meal allowances in relation to the work carried out under part-
time, fixed-term contracts. 
5 By civil judgment of 17 March 2023, the Regional Court of Vaslui upheld that 
action. In the first place, the court considered that Decrees Nos 5559/2011 and 
4050/2021 of the Ministry of National Education – which are administrative acts – 
are contrary to the hierarchically superior provisions of Article 144(1) of the 
Labour Code and Law No 1/2011. In the second place, the court found that those 
decrees violated the provisions of EU law which the Court is asked to interpret in 
the present case. Although the national legislation allows the 48-hour working 
work to be exceeded under employment contracts signed with several employers 
or with the same employer, where several posts are held, EU law requires paid 
leave to be granted for each individual contract. In the third place, the court held 
that the defendant’s refusal to grant the meal allowance in proportion to the actual 
working time was not justified under Law No 153/2017. 
6 The defendant appealed against that judgment before the Curtea de apel Iași 
(Court of Appeal of Iași, Romania), which is the referring court. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
7 The parties in the main proceedings do not put forward any substantive arguments 
in relation to the questions raised by the referring court. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
8 As regards the first question referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring court 
states that its request for a preliminary ruling does not concern the non-pecuniary 
component of the leave of the workers at issue, since they are entitled to 62 
working days of paid annual leave. Instead, it seeks to determine the amount of 
the pecuniary component of the holiday entitlement. 
9 The referring court notes that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, 
Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 establishes for each worker a right to paid 
annual leave, for the duration of which remuneration must be maintained. 
Although the structure of the ordinary remuneration of a worker is determined, as 
such, by the provisions and practices governed by the law of the Member States, 
that structure cannot affect the worker’s right to enjoy, during his or her period of 
ȘCOALA GIMNAZIALĂ ‘MIHAI EMINESCU’ 
 
7 
rest and relaxation, economic conditions which are comparable to those relating to 
the exercise of his or her employment. 
10 As the Court has consistently held, the objective of Directive 97/81 is, first, to 
promote part-time work and, secondly, to eliminate discrimination between part-
time workers and full-time workers. In the light of those objectives, Clause 4 of 
the Framework Agreement must be interpreted as articulating a principle of 
European Union social law which cannot be interpreted restrictively. 
Consequently, economic conditions – such as those relating to remuneration – 
cannot be excluded from the concept of ‘employment conditions’ within the 
meaning of that clause. 
11 The referring court states that the provisions of Romanian law recognise the right 
to paid annual leave for all teaching staff, regardless of whether they work under 
an individual permanent or fixed-term employment contract, and on a full-time or 
part-time basis. 
12 However, active teaching staff who, because they have several employment 
contracts, also work under the system of hourly pay, are entitled to paid leave only 
for the basic post for which the individual employment contract was entered into. 
13 Accordingly, the national rule establishes different legal treatment as regards 
holiday pay between employees hired on a single employment contract – who are 
entitled to holiday pay in relation to their salary – and employees who work under 
two separate contracts, who are entitled to holiday pay only in relation to the 
income they earn from their basic post. Retired teaching staff hired on an 
employment contract under a system of hourly pay, on a full-time or part-time 
basis, are also entitled to paid leave in proportion to the actual time worked. 
14 According to the referring court, the workers’ employment conditions include the 
right to paid leave. Furthermore, the difference in treatment established by 
Decrees Nos 5559/2011 and 4050/2021 of the Ministry of National Education is 
unfavourable to employees who work under several contracts, since the salary 
rights in respect of leave, although equivalent to those of a worker who has 
worked full time, are not linked to income earned from working under part-time, 
fixed-term contracts. 
15 The referring court also points out that the difference in treatment of employment 
conditions, as regards the right to paid leave, does not concern workers who work 
under a single part-time or fixed-term employment contract, but only those hired 
under two separate contracts. 
16 As for the justification for the difference in treatment, the referring court states 
that Decrees Nos 5559/2011 and 4050/2021 of the Ministry of National Education 
make no provision for the legitimate purpose pursued and do not specify how the 
legislative means are proportionate. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-706/23 
 
8  
17 The Constitutional Court and several national courts consider that the difference 
in treatment of teaching staff working under several contracts does not amount to 
discriminatory treatment. The Constitutional Court has thus held that ‘the 
legislature has the right to determine the method of calculating the amount of 
holiday pay due’. In that sense, the legislature has laid down the rule that, where 
they have several contracts, employees are only entitled to leave corresponding to 
the basic workplace, and not to the other workplace. That legislation applies 
equally to all employees, without preference or discrimination. The method of 
calculation of the amount of holiday pay in the event of public employees having 
several employment contracts (…) falls within the exclusive competence of the 
legislature and is not a constitutional question, as long as the legislature 
recognises the right to paid leave’. 
18 The case-law of the specialised labour courts also considers that the provisions of 
Decrees Nos 5559/2011 and 4050/2021 of the Ministry of National Education fall 
within the discretion available to the Member States when transposing EU 
directives, since the introduction of a system of hourly pay seeks to ensure the 
continuity of teaching, both in the event of the incapacity for work of the post 
holder, and in difficult-to-access areas where there may be a shortage of teaching 
staff. 
19 The existence of differences of interpretation as to the extent of the protection 
afforded by EU law through Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time 
work and Clause 4.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, as well as 
the applicability of those clauses in the event of the same worker having several 
employment contracts, led the referring court to refer that first question to the 
Court for a preliminary ruling. 
20 As regards the second question referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring 
court recalls that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice on Clause 4.1 
of the Framework Agreement on part-time work and Clause 4.1 of the framework 
agreement on fixed-term work, ‘pay’ means the ordinary basic or minimum wage 
or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which the 
worker receives directly or indirectly, in respect of his or her employment, from 
his or her employer. That concept includes any consideration, whether immediate 
or future, provided that the worker receives it, albeit indirectly, in respect of his or 
her employment from his or her employer. 
21 The referring court states that the meal allowance has become commonplace for 
Romanian public sector employees under Law No 153/2017 and that it consists of 
a monetary value added to the salary rights. The amount of the meal allowance is 
variable and is linked to the gross amount of the national guaranteed basic 
minimum salary. It is capped at one twelfth of twice the reference amount, 
calculated in relation to full-time work. The Court of Cassation has held that such 
rights fall within the category of monthly income from employment. 
ȘCOALA GIMNAZIALĂ ‘MIHAI EMINESCU’ 
 
9 
22 The meal allowance was granted to the workers at issue only in respect of the full-
time employment contract of indefinite duration. They were denied the meal 
allowance in proportion to the actual working time under the part-time, fixed-term 
contract. Furthermore, it was not included in the basis for the calculation of the 
amount of holiday pay. 
23 As with the calculation of holiday pay, teaching staff who have entered into 
several contracts receive different and unfavourable legal treatment, in so far as 
they receive a meal allowance only in relation to work carried out under a full-
time, permanent contract. Such difference in treatment stems from the application 
of the rule of law that establishes the right to the meal allowance and sets a 
maximum level for that allowance, which is already reached by working full time. 
However, that rule does not indicate other objective reasons and does not specify 
the legitimate purpose pursued in providing for such a difference in treatment. 
24 The defendant submits that the purpose of that rule is to ensure a balanced, 
healthy diet, and that as long as the workers at issue are granted the meal 
allowance for their basic post, they cannot also receive it for the post for which 
they are paid on an hourly basis, since the condition that it is granted in proportion 
to the working time relates to the working day, and not the hours worked. 
According to the referring court, however, that justification does not take into 
account the legal classification of the meal allowance, which is considered part of 
the remuneration for the work carried out. 
25 Lastly, if the meal allowance is considered part of the ordinary pay of teaching 
staff on a part-time, fixed-term contract, it must also be included in the 
determination of the salary rights corresponding to leave.