Provisional text
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
RICHARD DE LA TOUR
delivered on 26 March 2026 (1)
Case C‑706/23
Şcoala gimnazială ‘Mihai Eminescu’ Vaslui
v
Uniunea Sindicală ‘Didactica’ Vaslui for and on behalf of its members:
KM,
LN,
HT,
JC,
BF,
AX,
TK,
MG,
DB,
EJ,
RL,
DV,
MR,
GP
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Iaşi (Court of Appeal, Iaşi, Romania))
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive
2003/88/EC – Article 7 – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 31(2) – Framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements – Principle of non-discrimination – Principle of pro rata temporis – Multiple individual employment contracts – Teaching staff engaged on the basis of full-time employment contracts of indefinite duration and part-time fixed term employment contracts – Remuneration in respect of paid annual leave calculated solely on the basis of the full-time employment contract of indefinite duration – Meal allowance granted in relation to the actual time worked under the full-time employment contract alone )
I.      Introduction
1.        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (2) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (3) and of Clause 4.1 of the framework agreement on part-time work, concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Directive 97/81/EC (4) and Clause 4.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC (5) (together ‘the framework agreements’). The wording of Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements is essentially identical.
2.        The request has been made in proceedings between the Uniunea Sindicală ‘Didactica’ Vaslui (‘Didactica’ Trade Union, Vaslui, Romania), acting for and on behalf of fourteen of its members, who are teaching staff or assistant teaching staff (‘the employees concerned’),
and the Şcoala Gimnazială ‘Mihai Eminescu’ Vaslui (‘Mihai Eminescu’ secondary school, Vaslui, Romania) (‘“Mihai Eminescu” secondary school’) concerning the calculation of those employees’ financial entitlements relating to paid annual leave and the payment of a meal allowance to be added to their remuneration, where they have entered into both a full-time employment contract of indefinite duration (6) in relation to the basic post held and a part-time fixed-term contract. (7)
3.        As regards the interpretation of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 and Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements for the purpose of ensuring equal treatment with regard to remuneration in respect of paid annual leave, the case-law of the Court of Justice provides clear guidance. The new question to be addressed relates to the comparability of situations where a worker has entered into multiple contracts with, in particular, the same employer.
4.        That question follows on from numerous judgments in which the Court has consistently stated, by way of introduction to its interpretation of Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements, that that clause must be interpreted as articulating a principle of EU social law, which cannot be interpreted restrictively, having regard to the objective of ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination of fixed-term or part-time workers. I shall set out the reasons why, in my view, the framework agreements are applicable in the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, the existence of multiple contracts being, in fact, irrelevant.
II.    Legal framework
A.      European Union law
5.        Reference should be made to Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and to Clauses 2 to 4 of each of the framework agreements.
B.      Romanian law
6.        The main content of the national legislation can be summarised as follows, with reference to:
–        Legea nr. 1/2011 a educației naționale (Law No 1/2011 on national education) (8) of 5 January 2011, in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (9) (‘Law No 1/2011’);
–        Legea-cadru nr. 153/2017 privind salarizarea personalului plătit din fonduri publice (Framework Law No 153/2017 on the remuneration of staff paid from public funds) (10) of 28 June 2017, in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘Framework Law No 153/2017’); and
–        the rules implementing Law No 1/2011:
–        the Normele metodologice privind întocmirea proiectului de încadrare, respectiv a planului de încadrare a personalului didactic de predare din unitățile de învățământ preuniversitar și încadrarea în regim de plata cu ora a personalului didactic de predare din învățământul preuniversitar (implementing rules in relation to the preparation of the draft employment plan and the employment plan for teaching staff at pre-university educational establishments and in relation to the employment of such staff under a system of hourly pay), approved by Ordinul nr. 4165/2018 (Decree No 4165/2018) (11) of 24 July 2018 (‘the implementing rules of 2018’), and
–        the Normele metodologice privind efectuarea concediului de odihnă al personalului didactic de predare, de conducere, de îndrumare și control și al personalului de cercetare din învățământul de stat (implementing rules concerning annual leave for teaching, management, administration and supervisory staff and research personnel in the state education sector), approved by Ordinul nr. 4050/2021 (Decree No 4050/2021) (12) of 29 June 2021 (‘the implementing rules of 2021’). (13)
7.        Teachers paid from public funds may be employed under contracts of indefinite duration or fixed-term contracts (Article 254(1) of Law No 1/2011). They may perform multiple teaching roles where there is a vacant post to fill, in accordance with general legal provisions and with the provisions on the overlapping of working hours, maximum weekly teaching hours and rest periods in the event that that number of hours is exceeded (Article 29 of Framework Law No 153/2017 and Article 6 of the implementing rules of 2018, which concerns employment under a system of hourly pay).
8.        Standard working time for teachers employed in secondary and non-university post-secondary education is 18 hours per week (Article 262(3)(c) of Law No 1/2011) and the maximum working time is 40 hours per week (8 hours per day) (Article 262(1) of that law). Article 262 appears in the section of that law entitled ‘Teaching time’.
9.        Teaching staff are remunerated for teaching time on an hourly basis in the case of fixed-term contracts or where multiple posts are held (Article 254(1) of Law No 1/2011,
Article 12(1) of Part B of Chapter I of Annex I
to Framework Law No 153/2017, and Article 3(6) of the implementing rules of 2018).
10.      Teachers working full time under fixed-term contracts or contracts of indefinite duration for the whole academic year are entitled to 62 working days of paid annual leave which may be carried over to the subsequent academic year if they are not taken (Article 267(1) and (3) of Law No 1/2011). (14) Teachers who have worked for only part of the academic year, or who have worked on a part-time basis, are entitled to annual leave in proportion to the period for which they worked during the academic year concerned (Article 3(2) and (5) of the implementing rules of 2021 (15)).
11.      During annual leave, teaching staff receive ‘annual leave pay calculated in accordance with the legal provisions applicable to staff paid from public funds’ (Article 11 of Part B of Chapter I of Annex I to Framework Law No 153/2017).
12.      As regards the calculation of that ‘annual leave pay’, irrespective of whether the member of the teaching staff in question has a fixed-term contract or a contract of indefinite duration, no specific legal provision is cited in the request for a preliminary ruling. It may be inferred from Article 5(1) of the implementing rules of 2021 (16) that the remuneration paid in respect of work performed under a contract of indefinite duration is to be maintained in its entirety. It is therefore appropriate to refer, as the European Commission did, to the general rule applicable to all workers, set out in Article 150 of Legea nr. 53/2003 privind Codul muncii (Law No 53/2003 on the Labour Code) (17) of 24 January 2003. (18) In accordance with that article, ‘during periods of annual leave, employees shall be entitled to annual leave 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. … Annual leave pay shall be equal to the daily average of [those] salary entitlements … during the three months prior to the month in which the leave is taken, multiplied by the number of days of leave’.
13.      On the other hand, where multiple posts are held, ‘in-service teachers who also work under a system of hourly pay shall be entitled to paid annual leave only for the basic post for which the individual employment contract was entered into’ (Article 5(1) of the implementing rules of 2021). (19)
14.      In addition, staff paid from public funds receive a monthly meal allowance equal to one twelfth of two guaranteed gross national minimum basic salaries, granted in proportion to the actual time worked during the previous month, within a certain limit (Article 18(1) and (2) of Framework Law No 153/2017). The payment of a meal allowance and other bonuses, compensation and other supplements may not exceed 30% of the basic salary (Article 25(1) of that law).
III. The facts of the dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
15.      During the academic years 2019/2020 to 2022/2023, each of the employees concerned entered into a part-time fixed-term contract with ‘Mihai Eminescu’ secondary school, (20) under a system of hourly pay, for the period from September to June of each of those academic years. Those employees also had full-time contracts of indefinite duration as members of the teaching staff or assistant teaching staff with that establishment or, in one case, with another establishment.
16.      The financial entitlements relating to periods of annual leave taken (21) and the meal allowance were determined solely in relation to the remuneration for standard working time, that is to say, on the basis of their full-time contracts of indefinite duration, without taking into account the work carried out under their fixed-term contracts.
17.      The applicant brought an action before the Tribunalul Vaslui (Regional Court, Vaslui, Romania) seeking that ‘Mihai Eminescu’ secondary school be ordered to calculate, and pay to the employees concerned, annual leave pay and meal allowances (in proportion to the actual working time) based on the salaries received under the system of hourly pay.
18.      By judgment of 17 March 2023, that court upheld that application. First, in order to disapply the regulatory administrative acts (22) under which workers are entitled to paid annual leave only for the basic post for which the contract was entered into, it held that Article 144(1) of the Labour Code, which guarantees the right to paid annual leave, is a higher-ranking rule of law. It also relied on the combined application of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Clause 4 of the framework agreement on part-time work, relating to the principle of non-discrimination, as interpreted by the Court, in order to hold that the national legislation prohibiting the grant of paid annual leave is incompatible with those provisions.
19.      Secondly, as a basis for ordering the payment of the meal allowance claimed in proportion to actual working time, that court held that the applicable legislation (23) makes no distinction as to the nature of the contract.
20.      ‘Mihai Eminescu’ secondary school brought an appeal against that judgment before the Curtea de Apel Iaşi (Court of Appeal, Iaşi, Romania), which is the referring court, in so far as it concerned the entitlement to annual leave pay.
21.      The school argues that the basic salary of a teacher employed under a fixed-term contract is used to calculate the hourly remuneration for vacant or reserved teaching posts, and that teaching work which is paid by the hour must be regarded as in addition to that performed under the contract for the basic post. According to the school, it follows from the legal provisions that the Romanian legislature considered that annual leave pay should be granted only for standard working time, that is to say, only in respect of work performed under a contract of indefinite duration.
22.      It also maintains that the employees concerned are entitled to a meal allowance for the basic post equal to one twelfth of two guaranteed gross national minimum basic salaries. Therefore, the ceiling of 30% of the basic salary (as provided for in Article 25 of Framework Law No 153/2017 referred to in Article 18 thereof) would be exceeded as a result of the court of first instance ordering the school to grant the meal allowance in respect of work performed under a system of hourly pay.
23.      In the first place, the referring court states that there is no doubt that the legislation on pay for annual leave creates a difference in treatment between employees, to the detriment of those who have multiple employment contracts, because the remuneration received by employees with multiple contracts during paid annual leave is calculated only in relation to the income they earn from their basic post, while the income they earn from work performed under a fixed-term contract is not taken into account. It states that, nevertheless, a number of national courts and the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court, Romania) consider that that difference in treatment is not discriminatory. The referring court observes that the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) has held (24) that the method of calculating the amount of annual leave pay, which applies without discrimination to all employees where budgetary staff have multiple employment contracts, falls within the exclusive competence of the legislature and is not a constitutional matter as long as the legislature recognises the right to paid annual leave. The referring court is uncertain whether that analysis is compatible with EU law.
24.      In the second place, the referring court explains, first of all, that the meal allowance is a sum of money which is added to salary entitlements. The amount of the meal allowance varies according to the amount of the guaranteed gross national minimum basic salary and is capped at one twelfth of twice that salary, calculated in relation to full-time working hours. Next, it states that entitlement to the meal allowance appears to be inextricably linked to employment conditions, as defined in the case-law of the Court, (25) on the ground that the legal rules include that allowance in the category of monthly income from employment, and that it is taxable and subject to the payment of the related contributions. As it did in relation to the calculation of annual leave pay, the referring court raises the question, in the light of EU law, of the difference in treatment of a teacher who holds multiple posts which arises from the fact that he or she receives a meal allowance only in respect of work performed under a full-time contract of indefinite duration, and not work performed under a part-time fixed-term contract under a system of hourly pay.
25.      Lastly, it adds that that difference in treatment is justified only by the legal limit which requires that the maximum level for the meal allowance in the case of full-time work must not be exceeded, even if the teacher in question works in excess of the legal monthly working time, under two separate contracts. The referring court takes the view that that economic benefit is not taken into account when calculating annual leave pay because it is granted only in proportion to the actual working time.
26.      In that regard, the referring court relies on the judgment of 11 November 2015, Greenfield, (26) to argue that, if the meal allowance is considered to form part of the normal remuneration of a teacher working under a part-time fixed-term contract, it must also be included in the determination of the financial entitlements corresponding to paid annual leave.
27.      In those circumstances, the Curtea de Apel Iaşi (Court of Appeal, Iaşi, Romania) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1)      Are Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, Article 31(2) of the [Charter], Clause 4[.1] of the Framework Agreement on part-time work … [and] Clause 4[.1] of the framework agreement on fixed-term work … to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where a worker has multiple employment contracts in the field of [pre-university teaching] – [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 …, Clause 4[.1] of the framework agreement on fixed-term work …
and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, to be interpreted as precluding national laws and practices which, where [pre-university teaching staff] 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?’
28.      Written observations have been submitted by the Romanian Government and the Commission.
29.      On 10 December 2024, the Court decided to refer the present case to the Sixth Chamber and to rule on it without an Opinion.
30.      At the request of the Sixth Chamber, submitted pursuant to Article 60(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the Court decided, on 28 October 2025, to reassign the present case to the First Chamber and to allow for the delivery of an Opinion. (27)
IV.    Analysis
A.      The first question referred for a preliminary ruling
31.      The referring court seeks to ascertain whether Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, Article 31(2) of the Charter and Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where a worker has multiple employment contracts in the field of pre-university teaching, namely a full-time contract of indefinite duration in relation to the basic post held and a part-time fixed-term contract under a system of hourly pay, the remuneration to which that worker is entitled in respect of paid annual leave is to be calculated without taking into account the remuneration received under the part-time fixed-term contract.
32.      Teachers working under contracts of indefinite duration enter into multiple employment contracts in specific circumstances. That is the case where fixed-term contracts are used to fill vacant posts on an exceptional basis during an academic year, since the standard working time under a contract of indefinite duration is 18 hours per week, which may be extended by the effect of fixed-term contracts, while continuing to be eligible for 62 days of annual leave during the school holidays, regardless of the number of contracts entered into.
33.      Next, as the referring court observes, ‘each part-time employment contract contained a Chapter
1, entitled “Leave”, which provided that “in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Code …, leave shall be granted only for standard working time”’.
34.      Lastly, the calculation of teachers’ annual leave pay solely in relation to income from their contracts of indefinite duration is based on the implementing rules of 2011 or 2021, as applicable depending on the academic years in question. Those regulatory administrative acts, which derogate from ordinary employment law, (28) were adopted pursuant to special laws governing the activity of public sector teachers (29) only where they work under both fixed-term contracts and contracts of indefinite duration. (30)
35.      Since the dispute concerns remuneration in respect of the 62
working days of paid annual leave for pre-university teachers, and since the income earned from teaching hours worked under a part-time fixed-term contract is excluded from the calculation of that remuneration, where the teacher in question has multiple contracts, the compatibility of the special Romanian rules at issue with EU law must be examined in the light of two principles, one set out in Directive 2003/88, and the other in Directives 97/81 and 1999/70, as well as in Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements.
1.      The right to paid annual leave
36.      It must be borne in mind, first, that the right to paid annual leave is an essential principle of EU social law
which is reflected
and given concrete expression to in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, now expressly enshrined as a fundamental right in Article 31(2) of the Charter, from which there may be derogations only in compliance with the strict conditions laid down in Article 52(1) of the Charter. (31)
37.      Secondly, as well as an entitlement to a payment, that fundamental right also includes, as a right which is consubstantial with the right to ‘paid’ annual leave, the right to an allowance in lieu of annual leave not taken upon termination of the employment relationship. (32)
38.      The Court has also made clear that:
–        ‘Directive 2003/88 treats entitlement to annual leave and to a payment on that account as being two aspects of a single right’; (33)
–        the term ‘paid annual leave’ in Article 7(1) of that directive means that, for the duration of ‘annual leave’ within the meaning of that directive, remuneration must be maintained; (34) and
–        in other words, workers must receive their normal remuneration for that period of rest. (35)
39.      In that regard, the Court has held that ‘when the obligations arising from the employment contract require the worker to work overtime on a broadly regular and predictable basis, and the corresponding pay constitutes a significant element of the total remuneration that the worker receives for his or her professional activity, the pay received for that overtime work should be included in the normal remuneration due under the right to paid annual leave provided for by Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88’. (36)
40.      It must therefore be stated that:
–        the purpose of the requirement of payment for that annual leave is to put the worker, during such leave, in a position which is, as regards remuneration, comparable to periods of work; (37) and
–        pursuant to Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, the employer is required to grant such remuneration only for the minimum period of annual leave provided for in that provision. (38)
41.      Thus, ‘an increase in the entitlement to paid annual leave beyond the minimum required by Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 or the possibility of securing the right to unbroken paid annual leave are measures favourable to workers which go beyond the minimum requirements laid down in that provision and, as a result, are not governed by it’. (39)
42.      However, those measures cannot serve to compensate for the negative effect that a reduction in the remuneration due for annual leave has on the worker without undermining the right to paid annual leave under Article 7(1) of that directive, an integral part of which is the right for the worker to enjoy, during his or her period of rest and relaxation, economic conditions which are comparable to those relating to the exercise of his or her employment. (40)
43.      Lastly, the Court has already held that, when the remuneration paid on account of the entitlement to paid annual leave provided for by Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 is less than the normal remuneration that the worker receives during periods actually worked, the worker might well be encouraged not to take his or her paid annual leave, at least during periods of actual work, as it would lead to a reduction in his or her remuneration during those periods.(41)
44.      As an interim conclusion, I infer from the case-law of the Court that national law, applicable to teachers who hold multiple posts, cannot exclude the hours worked under a part-time fixed-term contract from the calculation of remuneration in respect of paid annual leave, for the minimum period of four weeks provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, (42) and cannot justify that calculation by increasing the entitlement to paid annual leave beyond the minimum required. (43)
45.      Specifically, the amount of remuneration paid to workers in respect of the minimum paid annual leave provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 must not be less than the average normal remuneration that they receive during periods actually worked.
46.      Furthermore, the fact that an employee with a contract of indefinite duration is also bound to his or her employer under a fixed-term contract has no bearing on the application of Article 7 of Directive 2003/88. According to the settled case-law of the Court, when a fixed-term contract ends, Article 7(2) of that directive lays down no condition for entitlement to an allowance in lieu other than that relating to the fact, first, that the employment relationship has ended and, secondly, that the worker has not taken all the annual leave to which he or she was entitled on the date that that relationship ended. (44)
47.      Consequently, the exclusion of the hours worked under a part-time fixed-term contract from the calculation of remuneration in respect of paid annual leave raises the question of the applicability of the framework agreements to situations, such as those at issue here, in which workers have multiple employment contracts.
2.      The difference in treatment when calculating teachers’ remuneration in respect of paid annual leave where they have a fixed-term contract and a contract of indefinite duration
48.      As regards employment conditions, Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements prohibits treatment of fixed-term workers or part-time workers in a less favourable manner than permanent or full-time workers in a comparable situation solely because they have a fixed-term or part-time contract, unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds.
49.      That prohibition on discrimination is simply a specific expression of the general principle of equality, which is one of the fundamental principles of EU law. (45)
50.      Since the wording of Clause 4.1 and 4.2 of the framework agreement on part-time work and that of Clause 4.1 and 4.2 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work is, in essence, identical, it must be stated that considerations set out in respect of one of those provisions also apply mutatis mutandis to the other. (46)
51.      The Court has already ruled on the combined application of the principles set out in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and on the prohibition of discrimination between part-time and full-time workers/workers with fixed-term contracts and workers with contracts of indefinite duration, laid down in Clause 4 of each of the framework agreements. (47)
52.      The Court has also held that, in the case of part-time employment, EU law does not preclude paid annual leave from being calculated in accordance with the pro rata temporis principle set out in Clause 4.2 of the framework agreement on part-time work. (48) The Court has also held that that clause and Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that the calculation of the entitlement to paid annual leave is to be performed according to the same principles, whether what is being determined is the allowance in lieu of paid annual leave not taken where the employment relationship is terminated, or the outstanding annual leave entitlement where the employment relationship continues. (49)
53.      Consequently, in the particular context of the case in the main proceedings, the specific question to be addressed concerns the comparability of situations in which a worker has entered into a full-time contract of indefinite duration and a part-time fixed-term contract, in particular with the same employer.
54.      In that regard, the Romanian Government takes the view that Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements is not applicable ratione materiae on the ground that ‘to consider that the provisions of Directives 97/81 and 1999/70 relied upon are applicable where a worker has both a contract of indefinite duration with a standard working time schedule and a part-time fixed-term contract with hourly pay, whose situation is compared to that of a worker working under a single contract of indefinite duration with a standard working time schedule, would go beyond the letter, scope and purpose of the provisions in question’.
55.      As a preliminary point, it is necessary to determine whether situations such as those at issue in the main proceedings fall within the personal and material scope of Directives 97/81 and 1999/70 and of the framework agreements.
(a)    Personal scope
56.      It should be borne in mind that, under Clause 2.1 of each of the framework agreements, those agreements apply to part-time/fixed-term workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined by the law, collective agreements or practices in force in each Member State.
57.      The Court has held that Directive 1999/70 and the framework agreement on fixed-term work are applicable to all workers providing remunerated services in the context of a fixed-term employment relationship linking them to their employer, whether those employers are public authorities or other public-sector bodies. (50)
58.      In the present case, it is common ground that each of the employees concerned is covered by the concept of ‘fixed-term worker’ and ‘part-time worker’ for the purposes of Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements, read in conjunction with Clause 3.1 thereof, and, therefore, falls within the scope of those provisions.
59.      Having regard to the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, the following questions arise: is Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements applicable where multiple posts are held? Should a distinction be made between a worker having multiple contracts with one employer and a worker having multiple contracts with different employers?
60.      I would point out that, in the case in the main proceedings, one of the teachers is employed at ‘Mihai Eminescu’ secondary school only under a fixed-term contract. She entered into a contract of indefinite duration with another educational establishment. (51)
61.      I note, in the first place, that situations in which workers hold multiple posts are not situations which may be excluded from the scope of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, in accordance with Clause 2.2 thereof, and that those situations have not been excluded in accordance with the procedures and conditions laid down in Clause 2.2 of the framework agreement on part-time work as regards part-time workers who work on a casual basis. (52)
62.      In the second place, I note that the Court has held that:
–        in the light of the objectives pursued by the framework agreements, (53) Clause 4 thereof must be interpreted as articulating a principle of EU social law which cannot be interpreted restrictively, (54)
–        Clause 4.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work aims to apply the principle of non-discrimination to fixed-term workers in order to prevent an employer using such an employment relationship to deny those workers rights which are recognised for permanent workers. (55)
63.      Consequently, an interpretation of Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements which introduces a distinction in the case of workers having multiple contracts, of which there is no suggestion in the wording of Clause 4.1 of each of those agreements, would limit the scope of the protection afforded to the workers concerned against discrimination, contrary to the wording and context of that clause and to the objective assigned to it.
64.      I note, in that regard, that it was for all those reasons that the Court held, in the judgment in Rosado Santana
, that the framework agreement on fixed-term work covers permanent workers some of whom have in the past been fixed-term workers. In the case which gave rise to that judgment, the applicant, in his capacity as a career civil servant, essentially sought to challenge a difference in treatment in an internal selection procedure arising when account was taken of seniority and professional experience acquired, on the ground that periods of service as an interim civil servant were not taken into account. (56)
65.      In those circumstances, I propose that the Court adopt an interpretation by analogy with the judgment in Rosado Santana, stating that, in the present case, it is also necessary to draw the appropriate conclusions from the fact that the employees concerned have both contracts of indefinite duration and fixed-term contracts, so that all remuneration under both types of contract is taken into account when calculating the remuneration in respect of paid annual leave.
66.      I am therefore of the view that the fact that the contracts were concluded between an employee and a single employer has no bearing on the analysis of the applicability of the framework agreements at this stage. On the other hand, the question of the effects of having one employer or several employers will have to be considered again with respect to the comparability of the situations.
67.      Consequently, it is appropriate to recall what is covered by the concept of ‘employment conditions’ within the meaning of Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements.
(b)    Material scope: ‘employment conditions’
68.      It is apparent from the Court’s case-law that ‘pay’, within the meaning of Article 157(2) TFEU, is one of the ‘employment conditions’ within the meaning of Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements. (57)
69.      According to Article 157(2) TFEU, ‘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 employment, from his employer’. As is apparent from the case-law, that concept must be interpreted broadly and it covers, in particular, any consideration, whether in cash or in kind, whether immediate or future, provided that the worker receives it, albeit indirectly, in respect of his or her employment from his or her employer, and irrespective of whether it is received under a contract of employment, by virtue of legislative provisions or on a voluntary basis. (58)
70.      The Court has held that ‘employment conditions’ within the meaning of Clause 4.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work cover the constituent parts of remuneration, including the level of those constituent parts, the right to paid annual leave and the conditions relating to retirement pensions which derive from the employment relationship. (59)
71.      Since the situations at issue in the main proceedings fall, in my view, within the personal and material scope of the framework agreements, it is now necessary to examine whether, and to what extent, the Romanian legislation at issue leads, as regards the calculation of remuneration in respect of paid annual leave where a worker holds both a full-time contract of indefinite duration and a part-time fixed-term contract, to a difference in treatment amounting to less favourable treatment of fixed-term part-time workers as compared with comparable full-time permanent workers.
(c)    Comparability of situations where multiple posts are held
72.      Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements provides that, as regards employment conditions, part-time/fixed-term workers are not to be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable full-time/permanent workers solely because they work part time/on a fixed-term basis, unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds.
73.      I would point out, first, that the expressions ‘comparable full-time worker’ and ‘comparable permanent worker’ are defined in Clause 3.2 of each of the framework agreements.
74.      Secondly, according to the settled case-law of the Court, in order to assess whether the persons concerned are engaged in the same or similar work for the purposes of the framework agreements, it must be determined, in accordance with Clause 3.2 and Clause 4.1 of each of those agreements, whether, in the light of a number of factors, such as the nature of the work, training requirements and employment conditions, those persons can be regarded as being in a comparable situation. Where it is established that, when they were employed, those part-time/fixed-term workers carried out the same duties as workers employed by the same employer on a full-time/permanent basis or held the same post as them, it is necessary, in principle, to treat the situations of those two categories of workers as being comparable. (60)
75.      Where multiple fixed-term or part-time posts are held, the same principles apply. That must, in my view, also be the case where, as here, part-time fixed-term contracts are concerned. It remains possible to compare workers on any of those contracts with permanent or full-time workers, applying the framework agreements on a distributive basis, or, in other words, on the basis of each framework agreement taken separately.
76.      Thus, where a worker has entered into a contract of indefinite duration and a fixed-term contract with different employers, his or her situation may be compared with that of a worker from each of the establishments concerned. In the present proceedings, that is the case with the teacher who entered into a part-time fixed-term contract with ‘Mihai Eminescu’ secondary school and a full-time contract of indefinite duration with another establishment. (61)
77.      Nor, in my view, can the fact that an employee has entered into a part-time fixed-term contract and a full-time contract of indefinite duration with the same employer preclude such situations from being comparable, for a number of reasons.
78.      First, the comparison can be made in relation to the group of workers employed on a permanent or full-time basis by that employer, on the basis of all the factors defined by the Court.
79.      Secondly, the right to paid annual leave must be examined for each individual contract rather than for each worker. Because of the detailed rules for calculating and granting that entitlement, the analysis must necessarily be different from that adopted by the Court as regards the application of Article 3 of Directive 2003/88, which guarantees a right to a minimum rest period of 11
consecutive hours per day. (62)
80.      Thirdly, it is necessary to apply the principles of interpretation most favourable to the worker derived from the case-law of the Court. (63)
81.      In the present case, an a fortiori argument in favour of examining the right to paid leave for each individual contract is tenable since, as it is not possible to extend the period of paid annual leave of teachers already covered by working time under a contract of indefinite duration, the only option upon termination of the fixed-term contract is to pay the allowance in lieu provided for in Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88 or, in an equivalent manner, to combine the remuneration received during the performance of the contract of indefinite duration or of the fixed-term contract during the period of paid annual leave. (64)
82.      In addition, the fact that the teachers entered into the fixed-term contracts to provide cover for vacant teaching posts (65) may be taken into consideration. (66)
83.      In those circumstances, I consider that the referring court is correct in finding that the only difference in treatment of the employees concerned results from their having a temporary and part-time employment relationship with their employer. In order for such a difference in treatment to constitute prohibited discrimination, it must not be justified on objective grounds.
(d)    Justification
84.      According to settled case-law, the concept of ‘objective grounds’, within the meaning of Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements, must not be understood as permitting a difference in treatment between fixed-term workers and permanent workers or between part-time workers and full-time workers to be justified on the basis that the difference is provided for by a general, abstract national norm, such as a law or collective agreement. (67)
85.      On the contrary, according to equally settled case-law, that concept requires the difference in treatment found to exist to be justified by the presence of precise and concrete factors, characterising the employment condition to which it relates, in the specific context in which it occurs and on the basis of objective and transparent criteria, in order to ensure that that difference in treatment in fact responds to a genuine need, is appropriate for the purpose of attaining the objective pursued and is necessary for that purpose. Those factors may result, in particular, from the specific nature of the tasks for the performance of which the fixed term or part-time contracts were concluded and from the inherent characteristics of those tasks or, as the case may be, from pursuit of a legitimate social-policy objective of a Member State. (68)
86.      In the present case, the referring court points out that ‘the rule of national law does not establish, expressly or implicitly, the legitimate objective pursued, nor does it determine the proportionality of the regulatory measures put in place’. The Romanian Government, like certain courts whose case-law is cited in the order for reference, states that part-time fixed-term contracts are concluded in order to ensure the continuity of teaching in the event of a shortage of teachers and to respect pupils’ right to education. However, that objective requirement relating to the post to be filled, which must be satisfied by the public authorities in the light of the discretion enjoyed by Member States, is not capable of justifying the difference in treatment at issue solely on the basis that the employment relationship is a part-time fixed-term employment relationship.
87.      To conclude, I take the view that the exclusion of remuneration paid under part-time fixed-term contracts from the calculation of remuneration in respect of paid annual leave is not permitted in the light of Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements.
B.      The second question referred for a preliminary ruling
88.      The referring court seeks to ascertain whether Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 and Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements must be interpreted as precluding national laws and practices which, where pre-university teaching staff
have multiple employment contracts, namely a full-time contract of indefinite duration in relation to the basic post held and a part-time fixed-term contract under a system of 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.
89.      As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the Tribunalul Vaslui (Regional Court, Vaslui), ruling at first instance, upheld the application made by the employees concerned for payment by ‘Mihai Eminescu’ secondary school of meal allowances in proportion to the actual time worked based on the salaries received under a system of hourly pay until the date of termination of the individual employment contracts. The referring court stated that the appeal brought by that school did not concern that decision.
90.      I therefore understand the last part of the second question referred for a preliminary ruling as following on from the first question concerning the basis for calculating the remuneration paid during annual leave.
91.      In those circumstances, that question must enjoy a presumption of relevance. Since it concerns the interpretation of EU law, the Court is, in principle, bound to give a ruling. (69)
92.      The second question submitted for a preliminary ruling therefore refers to Article 18
of Framework Law No 153/2017, as applied in the present case by ‘Mihai Eminescu’ secondary school.
93.      I recall that, in essence, that provision states that meal allowances equal to one twelfth of two guaranteed gross national minimum basic salaries are to be granted in proportion to the actual time worked during the previous month, within the limit laid down in Article 25(1) of that framework law, namely 30% of the amount of the basic salaries. It is common ground, according to national law as interpreted by the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania), that that allowance falls within the category of monthly income from employment.
94.      The second question leads me to refer back, first, to the definition of remuneration in respect of paid annual leave. (70) It must be held, in essence, that the expression ‘paid annual leave’ in Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 means that the worker must receive normal remuneration for duties they would usually perform.
95.      Secondly, as regards the scope of the framework agreements, as set out in points 58 and 66 of this Opinion, it should be added, with regard to employment conditions within the meaning of Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements, the definition of which has been restated in points 68 to 70 of this Opinion, that, according to settled case-law, the concept of ‘employment conditions’ referred to in those clauses covers, inter alia, increments and other elements of remuneration relating to the employment of workers. (71)
96.      Thus, in my view, the referring court rightly infers from the definitions given by the Court that meal allowances which are granted to staff as a result of the employment relationship between staff paid from public funds and their employer fall within the scope of Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements. (72)
97.      Consequently, where a teacher is employed on a part-time basis, the calculation of the meal allowance is objectively justified, within the meaning of Clause 4.1 of the framework agreement on part-time work, appropriate within the meaning of Clause 4.2 thereof, and adapted to the nature of the allowance. (73)
98.      However, the referring court notes that, in the present case, a teacher who has entered into a full-time contract of indefinite duration and a part-time fixed-term contract receives, in practice, different and unfavourable legal treatment, in so far as he or she receives a meal allowance only in relation to the work carried out under the full-time contract of indefinite duration.
99.      In that regard, I note, as does the Commission, the wording of Article 18 of Framework Law No 153/2017. Unlike Article 5(1) of the implementing rules of 2011 and 2021, Article 18 does not set a limit as regards the payment of a meal allowance either for employees with a fixed-term contract (74) or for those holding multiple posts. Furthermore, it must be inferred from the referring court’s observation on the practice of ‘Mihai Eminescu’ secondary school and from the wording of the question referred for a preliminary ruling that the expression ‘basic salary’ corresponds to that received in respect of the ‘basic post’. (75)
100. That court states that the only justification given for the difference in treatment at issue is that there is a maximum amount set by law, calculated on the basis of the full-time contract of indefinite duration. Thus, ‘Mihai Eminescu’ secondary school does not take into account the fact that the worker exceeds the monthly working time by working additional hours under a part-time fixed-term contract. I understand that, where the
ceiling has been reached under the contract of indefinite duration, it follows automatically that no allowance is paid for work carried out under the fixed-term contract and therefore for the additional hours worked, which leads to the conclusion that, where employees have entered into multiple contracts, part-time employees are automatically at a disadvantage compared with full-time employees, as is also the case with paid annual leave.
101. According to the referring court, that difference in treatment is not justified on objective grounds, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law. (76) Furthermore, it must be stated that the meal allowance is granted irrespective of the hours during which the employee’s tasks are performed and is not linked to the expenses actually incurred.
102. Consequently, the non-payment of meal allowances under part-time fixed-term contracts is not permitted in the light of Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements. As suggested by the Commission, the ceiling for the allowance should be calculated on the basis of all the contracts entered into, and not on the basis of the contract of indefinite duration alone. Where several educational establishments are involved, it is for the referring court to determine which authorising officer is responsible.
103. Since those allowances form part of teachers’ normal remuneration, they must be included in the calculation of remuneration in respect of paid annual leave. (77)
C.      If Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements does not apply, are Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter applicable?
104. That question, which was examined in the judgment in Gnattai, could be raised again if the Court were to find that the framework agreements are not applicable.
105. It must be recalled, first, that the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 21(1) of the Charter is a specific expression of the principle of equal treatment, which is a general principle of EU law and which is enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter. (78)
106. As regards the differences in treatment between fixed-term workers and permanent workers in a comparable situation, those principles have been implemented and given specific expression to by Directive 1999/70, and in particular by Clause 4 of the framework agreement annexed to that directive. (79) The same is true of Directive 97/81 and Clause 4 of the framework agreement annexed to that directive as regards the differences in treatment between part-time and full-time workers. (80)
107. Consequently, in so far as the questions referred for a preliminary ruling relate to such differences in treatment, it is appropriate to examine them solely in the light of those directives and of Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements. (81)
108. Secondly, Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 applies only in relation to the four-week period of paid annual leave. (82)
109. Therefore, where there is no ‘implementation of EU law’ for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter, in a field covered by EU law, Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter are not applicable.
V.      Conclusion
110. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice should answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Curtea de Apel Iaşi (Court of Appeal, Iaşi, Romania) as follows:
(1)      Article 7(1) of 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 and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as
Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, and Clause 4 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 agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP,
must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where a worker has multiple employment contracts in the field of pre-university teaching, namely a full-time contract of indefinite duration in relation to the basic post held and a part-time fixed-term contract under a system of hourly pay, the remuneration to which that worker is entitled in respect of paid annual leave is to be calculated without taking into account the remuneration received under the part-time fixed-term contract.
(2).      Article 7 of Directive 2003/88,
as well as Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81, and Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70,
must be interpreted as precluding national laws and practices which, where a worker has multiple employment contracts in the field of pre-university teaching, namely a full-time contract of indefinite duration in relation to the basic post held and a part-time fixed-term contract under a system of 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 the amount of remuneration in respect of paid annual leave.
1      Original language: French.
2      Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
3      ‘The Charter’.
4      Council Directive of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9); ‘the framework agreement on part-time work’.
5      Council Directive 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 framework agreement on fixed-term work’.
6      A ‘contract of indefinite duration’.
7      A ‘fixed-term contract’.
8      Monitorul Oficial al României, Part
I, No 18 of 10 January 2011.
9      It is stated in the request for a preliminary ruling that Law No 1/2011 was repealed, with effect from 3 September 2023, by Legea nr. 198/2023 a învățământului preuniversitar (Law No 198/2023 on pre-university education) of 4 July 2023 (Monitorul Oficial al Românie, Part
I, No 613 of 5 July 2023) and Legea nr. 199/2023 a învățământului superior (Law No 199/2023 on higher education) of 4 July 2023 (Monitorul Oficial al Românie, Part
I, No 614 of 5 July 2023).
10      Monitorul Oficial al României, Part
I, No 492 of 28 June 2017.
11      Monitorul Oficial al României, Part
I, No 699 of 10 August 2018.
12      Monitorul Oficial al României, Part
I, No 688 of 12 July 2021.
13      Ordinul nr. 5559/2011 pentru aprobarea Normelor metodologice privind efectuarea concediului de odihnă al personalului didactic din învățământ (Decree No 5559/2011 approving the implementing rules concerning annual leave taken by teaching staff) of 7 October 2011 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part
I, No 723 of 13 October 2011) (‘the implementing rules of 2011’) was repealed by Decree No 4050/2021 (see Article 2 of that decree). Those implementing rules were applicable during the first of the three academic years referred to in the dispute in the main proceedings.
14      Under Article 267(1) of Law No 1/2011, in duly justified cases, the management of the educational establishment may interrupt statutory leave and the persons concerned are to be remunerated for the work performed.
15      Those provisions are essentially identical to those of the implementing rules of 2011 (see footnote 13 of this Opinion). In Article 3(2) of the implementing rules of 2021, the expression ‘in proportion to the period worked’ replaced the words ‘in proportion to the number of months worked’. A second sentence was added to paragraph 5 of that article. It covers cases in which teachers are employed part-time in two or more establishments. Their right is exercised at the level of each educational establishment.
16      The wording of Article 5(1) of the implementing rules of 2011 was identical (see footnote 13 of this Opinion).
17      Monitorul Oficial al României, Part
I, No 72 of 5 February 2003, as republished in Monitorul Oficial al României, Part
I, No 345 of 18 May 2011.
18      In the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the Labour Code’).
19      See footnote 16 of this Opinion.
20      Their working time varied between 2, 4, 7, 18 and 20 hours per week.
21      The referring court states that the employees concerned took between 27 and 62 days of leave during the period concerned.
22      Namely the implementing rules of 2011 and of 2021 (see point 6 of this Opinion).
23      Namely Article 18 of Framework Law No 153/2017.
24      See judgment of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) No 385 of 17 April 2007, cited by the referring court.
25      The referring court cites, in particular, the judgments of 13 September 2007, Del Cerro Alonso (C‑307/05, ‘the judgment in Del Cerro Alonso’, EU:C:2007:509), and of 5 November 2014, Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund (C‑476/12, EU:C:2014:2332, paragraph 16).
26      C‑219/14, EU:C:2015:745, paragraphs 50 and 52.
27      See order of 5 December 2025, Şcoala gimnazială ‘Mihai Eminescu’ (C‑706/23, EU:C:2025:951).
28      In accordance with Article 35(1) and Articles 106 and 150 of the Labour Code, employees working under multiple contracts for several employers or for the same employer have the right to paid annual leave, regardless of whether they are working on a full-time or part-time basis under a fixed-term contract or a contract of indefinite duration.
29      The referring court cites two decisions of the Curtea Constituțională (Constitutional Court) which drew attention to the special nature of that legislation.
30      See point 10 of this Opinion for an outline of the applicable provisions on the right to paid annual leave for teachers employed on a full-time or part-time basis under a contract of indefinite duration or a fixed-term contract. The principle of non-discrimination therefore applies in those situations in accordance with Clause 4.1 of each of the framework agreements.
31      See judgment of 6 November 2018, Bauer and Willmeroth (C‑569/16 and C‑570/16, EU:C:2018:871, paragraphs 58, 80 and 84), and order of 15 July 2025, GTC Dijon (C‑37/25, EU:C:2025:586, paragraphs 17 and 30 and the case-law cited).
32      See judgment of 6 November 2018, Bauer and Willmeroth (C‑569/16 and C‑570/16, EU:C:2018:871, paragraph 58).
33      See judgment of 13 December 2018, Hein (C‑385/17, ‘the judgment in Hein’, EU:C:2018:1018, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).
34      See judgment in Hein (paragraph 32 and the case-law cited) and judgment of 9 December 2021, Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Remuneration during paid annual leave) (C‑217/20, EU:C:2021:987, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
35      See judgment in Hein (paragraph 32 and the case-law cited) and judgment of 9 December 2021, Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Remuneration during paid annual leave) (C‑217/20, EU:C:2021:987, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
36      Judgment in Hein (paragraph 47).
37      See judgment in Hein (paragraph 33
and the case-law cited) and judgment of 9 December 2021, Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Remuneration during paid annual leave) (C‑217/20, EU:C:2021:987, paragraph 27).
38      See judgment in Hein (paragraph 41).
39      Judgment in Hein (paragraph 43).
40      See judgment in Hein (paragraph 43) and judgment of 19 November 2019, TSN and AKT (C‑609/17 and C‑610/17, EU:C:2019:981, paragraph 35).
41      See judgment in Hein (paragraph 44) and judgment of 9 December 2021, Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Remuneration during paid annual leave) (C‑217/20, EU:C:2021:987, paragraph 33).
42      See judgment in Hein (paragraph 41).
43      See judgment in Hein (paragraph 43).
44      See judgment of 25 November 2021, job-medium (C‑233/20, EU:C:2021:960, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited). See also, to that effect, judgment of 21 November 2018, Viejobueno Ibáñez and de la Vara González (C‑245/17, EU:C:2018:934, paragraph 58).
45      See judgments of 10 June 2010, Bruno and Others (C‑395/08 and C‑396/08, EU:C:2010:329, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited), and of 4 September 2025, Gnattai (C‑543/23, ‘the judgment in Gnattai’, EU:C:2025:653, paragraphs 33 and 34 and the case-law cited).
46      See judgment of 7 April 2022, Ministero della Giustizia and Others (Status of Italian magistrates) (C‑236/20, ‘the judgment in Ministero della Giustizia and Others (Status of Italian magistrates)’, EU:C:2022:263, paragraph 34).
47      See, inter alia, judgment in Ministero della Giustizia and Others (Status of Italian magistrates) (paragraph 54).
48      See, inter alia, judgment in Ministero della Giustizia and Others (Status of Italian magistrates) (paragraph 52).
49      See judgment of 11 November 2015, Greenfield (C‑219/14, EU:C:2015:745, paragraph 57).
50      See judgment in Del Cerro Alonso (paragraphs 25, 28 and 29) and judgment of 8 September 2011, Rosado Santana (C‑177/10, ‘the judgment in Rosado Santana’, EU:C:2011:557, paragraphs 42, 55 and 58). See, as regards state educational establishments, judgment of 20 June 2019, Ustariz Aróstegui (C‑72/18, EU:C:2019:516, paragraph 24), and the judgment in Gnattai (paragraph 37).
51      See point 15 of this Opinion.
52      See, to that effect, judgment of 7 July 2022, Zone de secours Hainaut-Centre (C‑377/21, EU:C:2022:530, paragraph 48).
53      See Clause 1(a) of each of the framework agreements and the preamble thereto. See also, recitals 3, 11 and 23 of Directive 97/81 and recital 14 of Directive 1999/70 referred to inter alia in the judgment in Del Cerro Alonso (paragraph 36) and in the judgment of 10 June 2010, Bruno and Others (C‑395/08 and C‑396/08, EU:C:2010:329, paragraphs 29 and 30).
54      See judgment in Del Cerro Alonso (paragraph 38); judgment of 15 April 2008, Impact (C‑268/06, EU:C:2008:223, paragraphs 114 and 115);
judgment of 10 June 2010, Bruno and Others (C‑395/08 and C‑396/08, EU:C:2010:329, paragraph 32); and judgment in Rosado Santana (paragraph 44).
55      See judgment in Ministero della Giustizia and Others (Status of Italian magistrates) (paragraph 35 and the case-law cited); judgment of 20 February 2024, X (Lack of reasons for termination) (C‑715/20, ‘the judgment in X (Lack of reasons for termination)’,  EU:C:2024:139, paragraph 42); and judgment in Gnattai (paragraph 42).
56      See judgment in Rosado Santana (paragraphs 38 and 41 to 44).
57      See judgment of 22 February 2024, Randstad Empleo and Others (C‑649/22, EU:C:2024:156, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).
58      See judgments of 5 November 2014, Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund (C‑476/12, EU:C:2014:2332, paragraph 16), and of 22 February 2024, Randstad Empleo and Others (C‑649/22, EU:C:2024:156, paragraph 44).
59      See judgment in Ministero della Giustizia and Others (Status of Italian magistrates) (paragraph 38) and judgment of 27 June 2024, Peigli (C‑41/23, EU:C:2024:554, paragraph 43). See, as regards the concept of ‘employment conditions’ within the meaning of Clause 4.1 of the framework agreement on part-time work, judgments of 10 June 2010, Bruno and Others (C‑395/08 and C‑396/08, EU:C:2010:329, paragraph 42, on pensions), and of 19 October 2023, Lufthansa CityLine (C‑660/20, EU:C:2023:789, paragraphs 41 and 42, on additional remuneration).
60      See, as regards the framework agreement on fixed-term work, judgment of 15 December 2022, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others (University researchers) (C‑40/20 and C‑173/20, EU:C:2022:985, paragraphs 101 and 102 and the case-law cited), and, as regards the framework agreement on part-time work, judgment of 19 October 2023, Lufthansa CityLine (C‑660/20, EU:C:2023:789, paragraphs 44 and 45 and the case-law cited).
61      See point 15 of this Opinion. In that regard, it seems to me that Article 4(1) of the implementing rules of 2021, which is identical to Article 3 of the implementing rules of 2011, supports my analysis, in that it provides that the establishments at which teachers are employed are to share the burden of paid annual leave.
62      See judgment of 17 March 2021, Academia de Studii Economice din Bucureşti (C‑585/19, EU:C:2021:210, paragraph 45 and 46).
63      See points 62 and 63 of this Opinion.
64      See point 46 of this Opinion
65      See Article 29 of Framework Law No 153/2017.
66      See, by analogy, judgment of 5 June 2018, Grupo Norte Facility (C‑574/16, EU:C:2018:390, paragraphs 50 and 51).
67      See judgment of 5 May 2022, Universiteit Antwerpen and Others (C‑265/20, EU:C:2022:361, paragraph 53), and judgment in X (Lack of reasons for termination) (paragraph 58 and the case-law cited).
68      See judgments of 5 May 2022,
Universiteit Antwerpen and Others (C‑265/20, EU:C:2022:361, paragraph 54), and in X (Lack of reasons for termination) (paragraph 59 and the case-law cited).
69      See judgments of 8 November 1990, Gmurzynska-Bscher (C‑231/89, EU:C:1990:386, paragraphs 19 and 20), and of 30 October 2025, Tomann (C‑134/24, EU:C:2025:839, paragraph 66), and, as regards the factual and legislative context which the national court is responsible for defining, judgments of 15 May 2003, Salzmann (C‑300/01, EU:C:2003:283, paragraph 31); of 30 November 2023, Ministero dell’Istruzione and INPS (C‑270/22, EU:C:2023:933, paragraph 34); and of 13 November 2025, Oti (C‑525/23, EU:C:2025:877, paragraph 38).
70      See point 38 of this Opinion.
71      See judgment in Del Cerro Alonso (paragraph 48);
judgment of 20 June 2019, Ustariz Aróstegui (C‑72/18, EU:C:2019:516, paragraphs 25 to 27); and order of 10 July 2025, Centro Servizi Culturali Santa Chiara (C‑823/24, EU:C:2025:584, paragraph 24).
72      See also, as regards meal allowances, Opinions of Advocate General Kokott in Grupo Norte Facility (C‑574/16, EU:C:2017:1022, point 54) and in Montero Mateos (C‑677/16, EU:C:2017:1021, point 49).
73      See, by analogy, judgment of 5 November 2014, Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund (C‑476/12, EU:C:2014:2332, paragraphs 20 and 21 and the case-law cited).
74      See also the decision of the Tribunalul Vaslui (Regional Court, Vaslui) referred to in point 19 of this Opinion.
75      See also Article 150(1) of the Labour Code on employees’ right to ‘annual leave pay, which shall not be less than their basic salary’ during periods of annual leave.
76      See points 84 and 85 of this Opinion.
77      See point 38 of this Opinion.
78      See judgment of 18 April 2024, Dumitrescu and Others v Commission and Court of Justice (C‑567/22 P to C‑570/22 P, EU:C:2024:336, paragraphs 65 and 66), and the judgment in Gnattai (paragraph 33).
79      See, inter alia, the judgment in Gnattai (paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
80      See the principle of interpretation recalled in point 50 of this Opinion.
81      See, to that effect, the judgment in Gnattai (paragraph 35).
82      See point 44 of this Opinion.