Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:57
Date: 2026-01-29
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Translation C-654/24 – 1 
Case C-654/24 [Bariello] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
8 October 2024 
Referring court: 
Tribunale ordinario di Ravenna (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
8 October 2024 
Applicant: 
M.M. 
Defendant: 
Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito 
  
TRIBUNALE ORDINARIO di RAVENNA 
(DISTRICT COURT, RAVENNA, ITALY) 
SEZIONE CIVILE (CIVIL SECTION) 
SETTORE LAVORO (LABOUR DIVISION) 
The Giudice del Lavoro (Labour Court) […] 
ORDER FOR REFERENCE TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE 
EUROPEAN UNION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE 
INTERPRETATION OF EU LAW (Article 19 TEU and Article 267 TFEU) 
concerning the: 
 
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 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 10. 2024 – CASE C-654/24 
 
2  
– interpretation of clause 4(1) of the 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, also in relation to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
order of 18 May 2021, C-450/2021. 
European Union legislation 
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 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) 
The relevant rules are as follows: 
Article 1 of Directive 1999/70[/EC] states that the purpose of the directive is ‘to 
put into effect the framework agreement … concluded … between the general 
cross-industry organisations (ETUC, UNICE and CEEP)’. 
Clause 2 of the framework agreement, entitled ‘Scope’, provides, in point 1: 
‘This agreement applies to fixed-term workers who have an employment contract 
or employment relationship as defined in law, collective agreements or practice in 
each Member State’. 
Clause 3 of the framework agreement, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides:  
‘1. For the purpose of this agreement the term “fixed-term worker” means a 
person having an employment contract or relationship entered into directly 
between an employer and a worker where the end of the employment contract or 
relationship is determined by objective conditions such as reaching a specific date, 
completing a specific task, or the occurrence of a specific event. 
2. For the purpose of this agreement, the term “comparable permanent worker” 
means a worker with an employment contract or relationship of indefinite 
duration, in the same establishment, engaged in the same or similar 
work/occupation, due regard being given to qualifications/skills’. 
Where there is no comparable permanent worker in the same establishment, the 
comparison shall be made by reference to the applicable collective agreement, or 
where there is no applicable collective agreement, in accordance with national 
law, collective agreements or practice.’ 
Clause 4 of the framework agreement, entitled ‘Principle of non-discrimination’, 
provides, in point 1: ‘In respect of employment conditions, fixed-term workers 
shall not be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent 
BARIELLO 
 
3 
workers solely because they have a fixed-term contract or relation unless different 
treatment is justified on objective grounds’. 
Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states: 
‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are 
violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with 
the conditions laid down in this Article’. 
The Italian rules 
Article 1(121) to (124) of legge n. 107 – Riforma del sistema nazionale di 
istruzione e formazione e delega per il riordino delle disposizioni legislative 
vigenti (Law No 107 reforming the national education and training system and 
introducing delegation measures for the reorganisation of the legislative 
provisions in force) of 13 July 2015 (Official Journal of the Italian Republic 
No 162 of 15 July 2015), provides: 
‘121. In order to support the in-service training of teachers and to enhance their 
professional skills, an electronic card is introduced, within the spending limit set 
out in paragraph 123, for the professional development and training of tenured 
teaching staff at teaching establishments of every type and at all levels. The card, 
having a nominal value of EUR 500 per academic year, can be used to purchase 
books and texts (including in digital format), publications and journals relevant in 
any way for professional development, to purchase hardware and software, to 
enrol in professional development and certification courses for professional skills, 
organised by bodies accredited by the [Ministry], in undergraduate or masters 
courses related to the job profile, or in postgraduate courses or specialising 
masters courses related to the job profile, to attend theatrical performances and 
film screenings, to access museums, exhibitions, cultural events and live 
performances, and for initiatives consistent with the activities identified under the 
three-year training offer plan for schools and the national training plan referred to 
in paragraph 124. The amount charged on the card does not constitute additional 
remuneration or taxable income. 
122. By decree of the Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri (President of the 
Council of Ministers, Italy) in agreement with the Ministro dell’istruzione, 
dell’università e della ricerca (Minister for Education, Universities and Research, 
Italy) and the Ministro dell’economia e delle finanze (Minister for the Economy 
and Finance, Italy), to be adopted within 60 days from the date of entry into force 
of the present law, the criteria and procedures for allocating and using the card 
referred to in paragraph 121, the amount to be allocated within the available 
resources referred to in paragraph 123, taking into account the public digital 
identity management system, and the procedures for providing the advantages and 
benefits associated with that card, shall be defined. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 10. 2024 – CASE C-654/24 
 
4  
123. For the purposes referred to in paragraph 121, expenditure of EUR 381 137 
million per year from 2015 onwards is authorised. 
124. As part of fulfilling the teaching duties, in-service training of tenured 
teaching staff is compulsory, permanent and structural. Training activities shall be 
defined by the individual educational establishments in line with the three-year 
training offer plan and the results arising from the plans to improve the 
educational establishments provided for by the regulation referred to in decreto 
del Presidente della Repubblica n. 80 (Presidential Decree No 80) of 28 March 
2013, on the basis of the national priorities indicated in the national training plan, 
adopted every three years by decree of the Minister for Education, Universities 
and Research, after consulting the representative trade unions for the category 
concerned’. 
*** 
GROUNDS 
1. The applicant M.M. worked at the Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito 
(Ministry of Education and Merit, Italy; ‘MIM’), as a fixed-term (or 
temporary) teacher in the academic years 2020/2021, 2021/2022, 2022/2023 
and 2023/2024. 
2. The applicant complains of loss of use of the so-called teacher’s card or 
teacher’s bonus, and claims at this stage that MIM should be ordered to pay 
the corresponding sum: (i) primarily, in accordance with the detailed rules of 
the teacher’s card (in essence, the use of vouchers to purchase goods or 
services); and (ii) in the alternative, the payment of the sum of money; in 
both cases amounting to EUR 2 000.00 (EUR 500.00 for each year) in total. 
3. It should be noted that the applicant – who, at the time when the application 
was made (5 April 2024), had an ongoing employment relationship with 
MIM expiring on 30 June 2024 – currently (that is to say, after that contract 
expired) does not have a teaching position, for an indefinite period, or a 
fixed term, and is not included in the ranking lists from which the 
establishments take the names of teacher candidates in order to conclude 
fixed-term contracts, with the result that the applicant may be classified as a 
person who has ‘left the education system’. 
4. Under national law, the teachers’ card or bonus is an economic benefit 
provided for only in favour of teachers with a contract of indefinite duration 
in Article 1(121) of Law No 107 of 2015 […]. 
5. That legislative choice (excluding fixed-term teachers from the benefit) has 
been found to be contrary to EU law (Court of Justice of the European 
Union, order of 18 May 202[2], C-450/2021: ‘Clause 4(1) of the Framework 
Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to 
Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework 
BARIELLO 
 
5 
agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must 
be interpreted as precluding national legislation which gives only 
permanent teaching staff of the Ministry of Education, and not fixed-term 
teaching staff of that ministry, the right to benefit from additional 
remuneration in the amount of EUR 500 per year, granted in order to 
support the in-service training of teachers and to enhance their professional 
skills, by means of an electronic card which can be used to purchase books 
and texts (including in digital format), publications [and] journals relevant 
in any way for professional development, to purchase hardware and 
software, to enrol in professional development and certification courses for 
professional skills, in undergraduate or masters courses related to the job 
profile, or in postgraduate courses or specialising masters courses related 
to the job profile, to attend theatrical performances and film screenings, to 
access museums, exhibitions, cultural events, live performances and other 
training activities, as well as to purchase connectivity services in order to 
fulfil the obligation to carry out professional activities remotely’). 
6. Since the Court of Justice of the European Union has already ruled on the 
provision at issue, it is not necessary to reiterate concepts already known to 
the Court. It should be noted that the national legislation (DPCM [(Decree of 
the President of the Council of Ministers)] of 28 November 2016) defines 
the teacher’s card as conferring a right to purchase a wide range of goods 
and services (books, cinema, shows, software, hardware, training courses, 
etc.); the card is implemented in the form of a web application, by means of 
a system which, being usable through access to the Internet via a dedicated 
IT platform, provides for the inscription and registration of both teachers and 
traders, that is to say sellers of goods or service providers. That system 
generates a purchase code or voucher in favour of the teacher, for the goods 
or services chosen by him, which the trader can only accept for products that 
comply with the regulatory provisions. Following the purchase, the trader is 
granted a receivable of an equal amount vis-à-vis the Ministry. 
7. That said, it should be noted that following the ruling of the Court of Justice 
of the European Union referred to above, the Corte di cassazione italiana 
(Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy) (the court reviewing the legality, called 
upon to set out the principles of law), by ordinanza n. 29961/2023 (Order 
No 29961/2023), which examined a series of specific scenarios concerning 
case-law on the teachers’ card, limited in several respects what appeared to 
be the right of fixed-term teachers to the bonus at issue, as arising from the 
order of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 18 May 202[2] (in 
addition to the present order, a further reference from the Tribunale di Lecce 
(District Court, Lecce) is pending, concerning short-term and occasional 
supply teachers; 16 April 2024, C-268/24). 
8. In so far as the present case may be concerned, the Supreme Court of 
Cassation has first correctly defined the obligation at issue in terms of a 
monetary obligation, that is to say as relating to the payment of a sum of 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 10. 2024 – CASE C-654/24 
 
6  
money (‘the operation has, in essence, the effect of making legally available 
to the teacher the amount necessary for payment of the purchase which he 
makes from the trader and is therefore aimed at obtaining, albeit by means a 
complex implementation and financing mechanism, a sum of money which 
the third party (Ministry or other) makes available in the interest of the 
teacher-purchaser’, p. 31), with the logical consequence that the delay in the 
fulfilment of the delivery of the sum at issue automatically causes damage to 
the creditor, damage which the court must also automatically compensate 
(and therefore ancillary amounts are due: ‘…with interest or revaluation …’, 
p. 42). 
9. However, the Supreme Court of Cassation considered that the teacher’s 
bonus is solely for those who are still ‘within’ the education system (‘if 
such a teacher, after the year in which entitlement to the card was acquired, 
is removed from the ranking lists, the right to fulfilment ceases with such 
removal, due to having left the education system’, p. 36; ‘for those who are 
no longer within the education system, the only action is a claim for 
compensation’, p. 38) and, as stated, the applicant is no longer within the 
education system, as a result of which the loss of the right to fulfilment of 
the provision at issue occurred. 
10. The Supreme Court of Cassation then provided that the status of person 
within the education system must be established at the time of the 
decision (‘however, while it is true that the applicant is currently in a 
tenured teaching staff position and is therefore entitled to the specific form 
of award under the main action for performance sought, it is not possible to 
know what position he will be in when the court has to rule on the substance, 
in so far as he may no longer be in a tenured teaching staff position’, p. 38; 
‘when the court rules on their right, they must be within the teaching, 
education system, because they are included in the ranking lists for 
replacements, assigned a position as a replacement or transferred to a 
tenured teaching staff position’, p. 42) and, consequently, that the status 
itself may be ‘lost’ in the course of the proceedings – and thus in the time 
necessary to reach the decision – with retroactive effect (that is to say, not 
determining future benefits, but benefits already due before the loss of the 
status); as already noted, the applicant, a teacher at the time of the 
application, is currently completely ‘outside’ the education system. 
11. The Supreme Court of Cassation therefore provided – in the event of the 
initial lack, or lack occurring during the proceedings, of the status of person 
‘within’ the education system – for the retroactive extinction of the 
pecuniary obligation relating to the teacher’s card, in the sense that, if 
the former teacher has left the education system, even in the course of 
the proceedings, the bonus at issue is no longer due (as regards the years 
in which the worker was a teacher) and the application concerned must be 
definitively dismissed on the merits. 
BARIELLO 
 
7 
12. The Supreme Court of Cassation provided that, instead of the bonus at 
issue, the former teacher may be entitled to a sum of money by way of 
compensation for damage, but made that subject to a series of limitations 
and burdens, which appear discriminatory in comparison to permanent 
teachers, do not guarantee the effectiveness of EU law and are liable to 
compromise the effectiveness of the judicial protection afforded to the 
former temporary teacher. 
13. According to the Supreme Court of Cassation, ‘18.1 That gives rise to harm 
in multiple respects, despite the limited amount. In that case, a series of 
possible costs are involved (training expenses incurred independently 
through the purchase of goods or services for that purpose), possible loss of 
training opportunities and possible non-material damage concerning the 
exercise of the profession, without prejudice to any others. The burden of 
proof for the harm is on the party bringing the action, in accordance with 
general principles, although, in addition to the possibility of proving that 
harm by way of presumptive evidence, the award of compensation on an 
equitable basis should be accepted, by the court adjudicating on the 
substance, to the extent most appropriate in the case concerned, having 
regard to the circumstances of the actual case (including, for example, the 
length of time spent in the education system, to which the award relates, or 
any other relevant factor) and up to the maximum equal to the value of the 
card which would have been due, without prejudice to proof, at that specific 
point, for any greater actual harm’ (p. 38). 
14. By those brief assumptions, the Supreme Court of Cassation outlines a 
situation of the former teacher that is less favourable than that of the teacher 
because it imposes a number of additional requirements: 
(a) first, a specific application for compensation (which is different to 
an application for performance) becomes necessary; 
(b) additional allegations are necessary compared to the mere loss of 
EUR 500.00 per year: it must be asserted in the application – perhaps 
many years after the infringement suffered – that he has himself 
incurred, in the past, certain training expenses or, on the contrary, has 
been unable to do so and has suffered harm in respect of training; 
(c) there is the possibility of presumptive evidence: possibility means 
that the damage is not always and in any event presumed (therefore 
damage is not considered in re ipsa); moreover, proof of the damage 
always comes after the burden of alleging the harm suffered, so that 
the proof stage, even by way of presumptive evidence, does not arise if 
the allegations referred to in the preceding point are not made first; 
(d) there is the possibility of damage being assessed on an equitable 
basis: that means that the court has the possibility of awarding the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 10. 2024 – CASE C-654/24 
 
8  
former teacher a sum even lower than EUR 500.00, establishing it at 
its discretion. 
15. In essence, the fact that the Supreme Court of Cassation referred to the 
series of principles and requirements set out above, makes it clear that 
it is not sufficient for the applicant merely to show that he did not 
receive the payment of the sum owed to him, in violation of EU law, 
before losing his teacher status. 
16. If the Supreme Court of Cassation had wished to provide for the principle of 
automatic compensation equal to the unpaid sums, it would have done so 
expressly without referring to allegations, equitable assessment, and the 
possibility of presumptive evidence; the reference to these multiple criteria 
can only mean something different, namely a procedural burden on (and risk 
for) the former teacher. 
17. It should also be noted that, in general, in Italian law, it does not appear that 
a pecuniary obligation can become impossible and, therefore, be 
extinguished (retroactively) following the loss of a subjective status (in this 
case, teacher), for the obvious reason that money does not perish (genus 
nunquam perit) and that, therefore, anything other than the mere payment of 
the sum at issue is irrelevant (other extinguishing facts occurring – limitation 
period, Verwirkung – are not under consideration here). 
18. The retroactive extinction of the monetary payment obligation which 
has already arisen – under EU law and which has not been fulfilled – on 
account of the loss of a subjective status appears, therefore, to be a 
unique interpretative result, reserved exclusively for former teachers 
and in relation to the bonus at issue; that element also indicates the 
extent of the discrimination/burden to which former temporary 
teachers appear to be subject on this point. 
19. In addition, it appears to be an unfair and further discriminatory burden to 
convert a pecuniary obligation (to pay EUR 500.00 per year) into an 
obligation to pay compensation on the basis of deliberately uncertain 
parameters, by introducing random and procedural obstacles which, in some 
recent cases, have led the case-law on the issue to reject the former teacher’s 
application for lack of allegation and proof of the damage suffered (it was 
not sufficient that the former teacher complained that he had not received the 
sum to which he was entitled under EU law as a holder of the teacher card 
under the principle of non-discrimination between fixed-term employment 
relationships and those of indefinite duration). 
20. In the present case, if the principle of law laid down by the Supreme 
Court of Cassation were to be followed, the application would also have 
to be dismissed, for failure to allege specific damage other than the mere 
BARIELLO 
 
9 
loss of the economic benefit of EUR 500.00 per year, as well as for 
failure to prove the damage itself. 
21. However, that conclusion, as stated, in this court’s view, appears to be 
contrary first of all to the prohibition of discrimination laid down in clause 4 
(because those distinctions and burdens do not apply to permanent teachers). 
22. Such a dismissal would also undermine the effectiveness of EU law (and in 
particular the decision of the Court of Justice of 18 May 202[2] interpreting 
clause 4), and limit the right to an effective remedy within the meaning of 
Article 47 of the Charter (‘…when adopting legislation specifying and giving 
specific expression to the employment conditions which are governed, inter 
alia, by clause 4 of the framework agreement, a Member State implements 
EU law, for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter, and must therefore 
ensure compliance, inter alia, with the right to an effective remedy 
enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter (see, by analogy, judgment of 
6 October 2020, État luxembourgeois (Right to bring an action against a 
request for information in tax matters), C-245/19 and C-246/19, 
EU:C:2020:795, paragraphs 45 and 46 and the case-law cited)’, Court of 
Justice of the European Union, 20 February 2024, C-715/2020). 
23. In particular, the right to an effective remedy is seriously compromised 
by: 
(a) having converted, on the ground of the loss of the employment 
relationship with MIM, an earlier monetary payment obligation into a 
right to claim compensation for damage (going against established 
internal principles applicable to all other creditors); 
(b) having made granting the application subject to a condition which 
must be present not at the time of the infringement or of the 
application instituting proceedings, but at the time of the decision, and 
the loss of which (also in the course of the proceedings) retroactively 
nullifies (extinguishes) a right already acquired by the teacher; 
(c) having, from a procedural point of view, introduced burdens in relation 
to the application (a specific application for compensation is required), 
the allegation and proof of the damage appear to contradict the 
simplicity of the act constituting the abuse (the failure to pay – in 
breach of EU law – a sum of money to be used for the purchase of a 
wide range of consumer goods or services (books, cinema tickets, 
theatre tickets, training courses, and also hardware such as personal 
computers and software); as regards that failure to pay, it appears 
unnecessary to require further details of additional damage, 
considering that in relation to the sums of money (although intended to 
be used), it is in itself the lack of having the money which represents 
damage). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 10. 2024 – CASE C-654/24 
 
10  
24. However, if the delay in the payment of the sums of money and (as seen) 
also the sums relating to the teacher’s bonus, under general rules, 
causes automatic damage per se (and therefore interest and monetary 
revaluation are due; Cass. n. 29961/2023 (Supreme Court of Cassation, 
No 29961/2023), p. 42), how can the radical failure to pay the sum not 
itself cause automatic damage (damage in re ipsa), without there being 
any need for further allegations, explanations, details, and proof? 
25. A different conclusion cannot be reached by noting the ‘training’ purpose of 
the goods and services that can be purchased with the teacher’s card. They 
are everyday consumer assets and, as stated, are not training in the strictest 
sense, but rather only have training potential (not all books are the same, not 
all films are the same; there is no list of training content, or ‘index’ of 
prohibited books; with the card, one can buy any product of the authorised 
type, the training capacity for the beneficiary being irrelevant). Moreover, 
cinema-goers are not only teachers, and computers are not only bought by 
teachers (who, if they do buy them, can use them for any individual purpose, 
even non-educational). Furthermore, hardware may also have significant 
intrinsic economic value, which is why it is not clear why the benefit of the 
teacher’s card should be excluded retroactively on the basis that 
subsequently (when the credit accrues) the worker has left the education 
system: a EUR 500 computer remains a EUR 500 computer, whether the 
person is a teacher or not. 
26. If the platform with access codes, reserved for MIM employees, was then 
the issue, that may be addressed by establishing that former teachers may 
also have access to it in order to use the teachers’ bonus as if they were still 
teachers (which is, moreover, the case for those who are included in the 
ranking lists but do not have fixed-term positions and for whom the Supreme 
Court of Cassation has in any event upheld the entitlement to the bonus at 
issue); alternatively, MIM could be allowed to pay the pecuniary obligation 
in money which is legal tender and not in vouchers; there are therefore no 
practical obstacles to maintaining the pecuniary nature of the obligation even 
after the teacher’s departure from the education system, or to providing for 
automatic compensation for the amount of the benefits not provided. 
27. In the light of the foregoing, while, on the one hand, it appears that the 
Italian system as a whole (the legislation and case-law) has introduced 
significant substantive and procedural limitations for former teachers who 
claim, in relation to the past, payment of the teacher’s card (including the 
retroactive loss of the right), on the other hand there does not appear to be 
any justification (logical, legal, practical, and having regard to the purpose) 
capable of supporting those formalistic limitations, which, on the contrary – 
and this is clearly also a further discriminatory aspect – go against the 
general national rules on obligations and procedure. 
BARIELLO 
 
11 
28. In essence, it appears to be contrary to clause 4 and the interpretation of the 
Court of Justice of the European Union in 2021 on teaching cards for fixed-
term teachers to consider that the applicant, who, from 2020 to 2024, should 
have received EUR 2 000.00 in total to be spent on the goods and services 
provided for by the legislation, is deprived of it retroactively merely because 
she is no longer currently part of the education system, and also because she 
has merely stated before the present court that her own economic loss is 
simply demonstrated by the obvious fact that she did not receive the sum at 
issue. 
ON THOSE GROUNDS 
The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 19(3) TEU and Article 267 TFEU: 
‘Must clause 4 of the framework agreement in Directive 1999/70/EC be 
interpreted (including for the purposes of the effectiveness of EU law and the 
guarantee of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter) 
as precluding the limitations set out in the grounds (in the event of the applicant 
no longer being included in the education system) introduced by national case-
law in the award of the teacher’s card and, therefore, is it necessary and 
sufficient, including for former teachers (persons outside the education system), in 
order to receive payment of the sums to which they would have been entitled 
during the course of their employment relationship under the teaching card 
(EUR 500 per year), to submit an application to the courts for payment of those 
sums, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the teaching card or directly 
in money which is legal tender, without any further burdens being imposed in 
relation to applications, allegations or proof?’ 
[…] 
Ravenna, 8 October 2024 
[…]