Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2025:584
Date: 2025-07-10
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary C-823/24 – 1 
Case C-823/24 
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: 
3 December 2024 
Referring court: 
Tribunale ordinario di Trento (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
18 November 2024 
Applicants: 
KP, HG, MC and VM 
Defendant: 
Centro Servizi Culturali Santa Chiara 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action for a declaration and an order for payment of sums allegedly payable to 
workers in respect of a flexibility bonus and company supplement to the minimum 
wage and not paid, in breach of the principle of non-discrimination laid down in 
Directive 1999/70/EC. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU concerning the 
interpretation of clause 4.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work 
concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP on 18 March 1999 (‘the Framework 
Agreement’). 
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Does the principle of non-discrimination under clause 4 of the Framework 
Agreement preclude national rules in the trade union agreements of 2014 (points 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-823/24 
 
2  
II and III) and 2018, points (a) and (b), which provide for the payment of the 
flexibility bonus and the company supplement to the minimum wage only for 
workers classified in the third level of the CCNL (contratto collettivo nazionale di 
lavoro (national collective employment agreement)) (for workers and employees 
of permanent public theatres and theatres managed by the ETI (ente teatrale 
Italiano (Italian theatre board)), who are employed under a permanent contract and 
not also for those employed under a fixed-term contract, and is there an objective 
reason capable of justifying a difference in treatment between permanent workers 
and fixed-term workers? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and 
CEEP, of 18 March 1999, 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. 
Directive (EU) 2022/2041 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
19 October 2022 on adequate minimum wages in the European Union. 
Judgments of the Court of Justice of 22 December 2010, Gavieiro and Iglesias 
Torres (C-444/09 and C-456/09), of 8 September 2011, Rosado Santana 
(C-177/10), and of 18 October 2012, Valenza and Others (C-302/11 to C-305/11); 
and orders of 18 March 2011, Montoya Medina (C-273/10), and of 9 February 
2012, Lorenzo Martinez (C-556/11). 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Article 36 of the Costituzione (‘the Constitution’). 
Decreto legislativo 6 settembre 2001, n. 368, Attuazione della direttiva 1999/70 
(Legislative Decree No 368 transposing Directive 1999/70/EC), Article 6: ‘A 
worker with a fixed-term contract is entitled, in proportion to the period of 
employment completed, to paid leave and a Christmas bonus or a thirteenth-month 
bonus, as well as to end-of-contract compensation and any other benefits granted 
within the undertaking to comparable workers with permanent contracts, that is to 
say, those who are classified in the same category in accordance with 
classification criteria laid down by collective agreement, provided that this is not 
objectively incompatible with the nature of the fixed-term contract’. 
Decreto legislativo 15 giugno 2015, n. 81, Disciplina organica dei contratti di 
lavoro e revisione della normativa in tema di mansioni (Legislative Decree No 81 
of 15 June 2015 on the systematic regulation of employment contracts and 
amendment of the legislation on employment-related duties), Article 25: ‘A fixed-
term worker is entitled, in proportion to the period of employment completed, to 
economic and regulatory benefits granted within the undertaking to comparable 
CENTRO SERVIZI CULTURALI SANTA CHIARA 
 
3 
workers with permanent contracts, that is to say, those who are classified in the 
same category in accordance with classification criteria laid down by collective 
agreement, provided that this is not objectively incompatible with the nature of the 
fixed-term contract’. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicants have been working for the Centro Servizi Culturali Santa Chiara 
(‘the Centre’), a public economic body, since September 2020, under a permanent 
contract and with stage technician duties, classified in the third level of the CCNL 
in their professional category. They had already worked for the Centre, from 
September 2014 to June 2018 under fixed-term on-call contracts, and from 
September 2018 to June 2020 under seasonal fixed-term employment contracts, 
with the same duties and classification. 
2 On 26 April 2014, the Centre and a number of trade unions signed a company 
trade union agreement which, in point II, provided for a monthly company 
supplement to the minimum wage of EUR 309.87 for workers classified as level 3 
and, in point III, established a monthly flexibility bonus of EUR 338.00 for stage 
management staff. In the subsequent trade union agreement of 16 October 2018, 
an increased flexibility bonus of EUR 350.00 per month was established from 
January 2018 for technical staff employed under a permanent contract, as well as 
an increased hourly flexibility bonus of EUR 2.07 per hour from January 2018 for 
technical staff on an intermittent permanent contract. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
3 The applicants complain that those bonuses were only granted to them from 
September 2018 (flexibility bonus) and September 2019 (company supplement to 
the minimum wage), excluding the periods from October 2016 to June 2018 (for 
the bonus) and October 2016 to June 2019 (for the supplement to the minimum 
wage). They request that the bonus and the supplement to the minimum wage be 
paid for the latter periods as well. They point out that granting such pay only to 
permanent workers and not to fixed-term workers is contrary to EU law on fixed-
term contracts, in particular Directive 1999/70, and constitutes an unjustified 
difference in treatment, in so far as the duties performed are equivalent. The 
applicants rely on Article 6 of Legislative Decree 368/2001 which provides, in 
essence, that fixed-term workers are entitled to certain benefits provided for 
comparable permanent workers, in proportion to the work performed, provided 
that that is not objectively incompatible with the nature of the fixed-term contract. 
They submit that that provision establishes that fixed-term workers and permanent 
workers are to be treated in the same way in all aspects of their employment 
relationship and therefore request the grant of the abovementioned elements of 
remuneration also in respect of the period during which they were employed under 
fixed-term, on-call and seasonal contracts, on the ground that failure to pay 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-823/24 
 
4  
constitutes an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination laid down in 
Directive 1999/70. 
4 The defendant states that the Centre is a public body which, by virtue of its legal 
status, must select staff in accordance with the principles of publicity, impartiality 
and transparency. Its management expenditure must be proportionate to the 
budget allocated. It states that the workers, while performing the duties of theatre 
technicians during the various employment relationships, had a diversified role: as 
intermittent fixed-term workers, they helped permanent staff to meet the demands 
of the theatre season, arising from the fact that performances take place during 
certain periods of the year. During the period in which they did on-call work, they 
were not required to guarantee any availability and were not bound by an 
exclusive relationship with the Centre. 
5 According to the defendant, there is no breach of the principle of non-
discrimination laid down in clause 4 of the Framework Agreement, and the legal 
framework guarantees fixed-term workers the same treatment as permanent 
workers, provided it is compatible. It explains that, in proportion to the work 
performed, the fixed-term worker classified in the third level of the CCNL must 
receive the same basic pay as the permanent colleague, including various 
allowances and increases for overtime, but that the right to the same substantive 
treatment does not entail the obligation to guarantee the same undifferentiated 
economic treatment to all workers or to those belonging to the same category, 
given that in the national legal system there is no general principle of equal pay 
for workers with the same qualification and duty, since Article 36 of the 
Constitution enshrines only the right to receive remuneration that is sufficient and 
proportionate to the quality and quantity of the work performed. 
6 The defendant refers to Directive (EU) 2022/2041, which established a framework 
to ensure adequate minimum wages in the European Union. In its view, provided 
that the remuneration criteria in accordance with EU law are met, the employer 
may vary remuneration on the basis of objective elements which justify specific 
remuneration depending on the work actually performed, even for similar duties. 
According to the defendant, during the applicants’ fixed-term and intermittent 
employment contracts, they received a higher hourly remuneration, of EUR 15.00, 
than that of intermittent permanent colleagues, of EUR 12.00 including the 
supplement to the minimum wage. That is also the case for the seasonal contract 
concluded by the applicants: EUR 12.00 for them and EUR 8.96 for the 
permanent colleagues. According to the defendant, the employer may provide for 
different remuneration between workers that perform similar duties, provided that 
this does not give rise to arbitrary discrimination, in compliance with clause 4 of 
the Framework Agreement and taking into account the different elements which 
characterise the fixed-term contract and the specific manner in which the duties 
are to be performed. That is also the case for the flexibility bonus and the 
company supplement to the minimum wage, which constitutes additional pay in 
excess of the normal remuneration, left to the discretion of the employer. The 
reasons for the differentiation allegedly lie in limiting public expenditure and the 
CENTRO SERVIZI CULTURALI SANTA CHIARA 
 
5 
need to create employee loyalty in a sector in which demand for qualified staff is 
very high. The supplement to the minimum wage was provided for in the second-
level agreement of October 2010 in favour of permanent staff in order to 
encourage them to stay at the Centre, whereas the hourly flexibility bonus was 
introduced on 26 April 2014 for theatre staff on an intermittent permanent 
contract. That bonus was introduced only for workers on intermittent permanent 
contracts, since any overtime performed by those categories – which must be 
available according to the flexible times of performances and rehearsals – is 
included in the working time accounts. By contrast, according to the defendant, 
fixed-term intermittent staff received better treatment, since they were paid 
overtime in their pay packet in a flat-rate form (that is to say, a fixed monthly 
amount for overtime, paid irrespective of the actual performance of additional 
working hours). Awarding the bonus also to intermittent fixed-term workers is 
allegedly unjustified in relation to permanent workers, as the former already enjoy 
more favourable treatment. Payment of the flexibility bonus is justified by the loss 
of payment of overtime in a flat-rate form, whilst the supplement to the minimum 
wage was provided for in the notice of competition for the recruitment of 
technicians with a view to future recruitment on a permanent basis and for use in 
the interim. According to the defendant, the supplement to the minimum wage 
was also granted to fixed-term workers, including the applicants, who were in an 
appropriate position in the ranking list for recruitment, as it was provided for in 
the invitation to tender, with the result that, following the new fixed-term 
recruitment of 7 October 2019 it was paid to them, with a view to stabilisation. 
7 The defendant asserts that seasonal contracts and intermittent contracts differ from 
fixed-term contracts and permanent contracts from a quantitative and, above all, 
substantive point of view. The seasonal contract is an amendment to the fixed-
term contract, due to activities which are repeated annually and which increase 
during certain periods. However, the cyclical nature does not imply stability of the 
employment relationship, which, on the contrary, is linked to the duration and 
needs of each season. The intermittent fixed-term contract differs from that of a 
permanent contract by the complete lack of continuity, in so far as it is intended to 
meet not only temporary needs, but also the need for flexibility. The fact that, 
according to the Centre, fixed-term workers receive higher remuneration than 
permanent workers is evidence of that differentiation. The defendant also noted 
that the intermittent permanent member of staff cannot take on work commitments 
without the authorisation of the management and is entitled to a monthly 
availability allowance, whereas workers on intermittent fixed-term contracts may 
work for other employers without requesting authorisation and do not receive any 
on-call allowance, since they are not bound by an obligation to be available for 
any work. The grant of the flexibility bonus and the company supplement to the 
minimum wage also allegedly result in more favourable treatment for fixed-term 
workers, giving rise to reverse discrimination. However, it must be taken into 
account that from September 2018 the defendant granted the applicants the bonus, 
and from October 2019 it granted them the company supplement to the minimum 
wage, despite the fact that they were still engaged on a fixed-term basis at that 
time. The defendant justifies this by arguing that in the context of the public 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-823/24 
 
6  
competition organised by the Centre for recruiting new technicians, provision was 
also made for payment of the supplement to the minimum wage for those who, 
like the applicants, had been engaged on a fixed-term basis and were well-placed 
in the ranking list, with a view to relationship stabilisation. That may suggest that 
the payment of that additional remuneration is related not so much to the fixed-
term or permanent nature of the contract or the function performed, but rather to 
the organisational needs and discretion of the employer. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
8 The referring court refers to clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement, which 
enshrines the general principle of non-discrimination between fixed-term workers 
and comparable permanent workers, and to Article 25(1) of Legislative Decree 
81/2015, which provides, in essence, for equal treatment between fixed-term 
workers and comparable permanent workers, classified in the same category 
according to the criteria laid down in the collective agreement, in proportion to the 
work performed, ‘provided that this is not objectively incompatible with the 
nature of the fixed-term contract’. The defendant focuses its defence on the 
concept of such incompatibility. 
9 The question referred for a preliminary ruling concerns the comparability of the 
situations at issue and the existence of a possible objective justification for 
differentiating, in terms of remuneration, between staff performing the same 
duties, on the basis of the nature of the intermittent or seasonal fixed-term or 
permanent contract. 
10 Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement is unconditional and sufficiently precise 
for individuals to be able to rely on it before a national court as against the State 
from the date of expiry of the period within which the Member States should have 
transposed Directive 1999/70 (Gavieiro and Iglesias Torres, paragraphs 78 to 83, 
97 and 98; order in Montoya Medina, paragraph 46; Rosado Santana, 
paragraph 56; and Valenza, paragraph 40). The principle of non-discrimination 
requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and different 
situations must not be treated alike unless such treatment is objectively justified 
(Rosado Santana, paragraph 65; and Valenza, paragraph 40). In order to assess 
whether the situations are comparable, it is necessary to ascertain whether the 
worker engaged on a fixed-term seasonal or intermittent contract performs 
different duties in relation to those of the worker employed on a permanent basis, 
which requires a number of factors to be taken into account, such as the nature of 
the work, training requirements and working conditions (Rosado Santana, 
paragraph 66; order in Lorenzo Martinez, paragraph 43; and Valenza, 
paragraph 40). Those elements also constitute factors which could objectively 
justify a difference in treatment between permanent workers and comparable 
fixed-term workers (Rosado Santana, paragraphs 69 and 73; and Valenza, 
paragraphs 44 and 51), particularly in the light of Article 25 of Legislative Decree 
CENTRO SERVIZI CULTURALI SANTA CHIARA 
 
7 
81/2015, cited above, which reaffirms the concept of objective incompatibility 
given the nature of the fixed-term contract. 
11 It is therefore necessary to ascertain, for the purposes of applying the principle of 
non-discrimination, whether the applicants were carrying out work of the same 
nature, with the same training requirements. The applicants note that they worked 
for the defendant in stage manager duties and that they always performed the 
same duties even after the recruitment on a permanent basis, the only difference 
being that they did not receive the flexibility bonus and the company supplement 
to the minimum wage during the seasonal and on-call fixed-term employment 
relationships. Their duties were no different from those performed by permanent 
workers in the same category, therefore they received different treatment to 
permanent staff in relation to remuneration for the same relationship and in the 
performance of the same duties. 
12 By way of justification, the defendant relies on the arguments referred to in the 
preceding paragraphs: the lack of stability of the seasonal contract; the temporary 
needs of each season; the lack of continuity of the fixed-term intermittent contract; 
the failure to provide for the on-call allowance; the loss of the flat-rate overtime 
payment, with the consequent grant of the flexibility bonus; and the introduction 
of the company supplement to the minimum wage as an incentive to stabilise 
employees. 
13 Another problematic aspect concerns the fact that, if the different treatment were 
to be considered discriminatory, it would be necessary to consider the value that 
should be attributed to the higher remuneration already paid to intermittent and 
seasonal fixed-term workers compared to permanent workers. The defendant 
submitted to the court that the sums paid to workers by way of overtime in the 
form of a flat-rate during the intermittent fixed-term contracts should be deducted 
from any sums awarded to the workers and, in particular, from the sums otherwise 
due as a flexibility bonus. 
14 It is therefore necessary to clarify whether the principle of non-discrimination laid 
down in clause 4 of the Framework Agreement precludes national rules contained 
in the 2014 trade union agreements set out above, which provide for the payment 
of the flexibility bonus and the company supplement to the minimum wage only 
for the permanent workers referred to above and not also for the fixed-term 
workers, and whether there is a justification for the difference in treatment 
between permanent and fixed-term workers.