Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Tenth Chamber)
12 March 2026 (*)
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78/EC – Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of disability – Article 2(2) – Right of a teacher with a disability to be transferred to a particular territorial area – Article 5 – Reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities – Priority for mobility within a territorial area as compared to mobility between different territorial areas )
In Case C‑597/24 [Zirvatta], (i)
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy), made by decision of 10 September 2024, received at the Court on 16 September 2024, in the proceedings
C.M.
v
Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito
Other parties:
Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Lombardia,
Ambito Territoriale di Mantova,
Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Calabria,
THE COURT (Tenth Chamber),
composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún (Rapporteur), President of the Fifth Chamber, acting as President of the Tenth Chamber, E. Regan and D. Gratsias, Judges,
Advocate General: A. Rantos,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
–        the Italian Government, by S. Fiorentino, acting as Agent, and by D. D’Alberti, avvocato dello Stato, and de M.T. Lubrano Lobianco, procuratore dello Stato,
–        the European Commission, by D. Recchia and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2(2)(b)(i) and Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
2        The request has been made in proceedings between C.M., a teacher with a disability, and the Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito (Ministry of Education and Merit, Italy) concerning C.M.’ s request to be transferred to a province other than that in which she works.
Legal context
International law
3        Under Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, concluded in New York on 13 December 2006 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009 (OJ 2010 L 23, p. 35; ‘the UN Convention’):
‘The purpose of the present Convention is to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.
Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.’
4        Article 2 of that convention is worded as follows:
‘For the purposes of the present Convention:
…
“Discrimination on the basis of disability” means any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field. It includes all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable accommodation;
“Reasonable accommodation” means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms;
…’
5        Article 5 of that convention provides:
‘1.      States Parties recognise that all persons are equal before and under the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law.
…
4.      Specific measures which are necessary to accelerate or achieve de facto equality of persons with disabilities shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of the present Convention.’
6        According to Article 27(1)(g) of the same convention:
‘States Parties recognise the right of persons with disabilities to work, on an equal basis with others; this includes the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work freely chosen or accepted in a labour market and work environment that is open, inclusive and accessible to persons with disabilities. States Parties shall safeguard and promote the realisation of the right to work, including for those who acquire a disability during the course of employment, by taking appropriate steps, including through legislation, to, inter alia:
…
(g)      Employ persons with disabilities in the public sector’.
European Union law
7        Recitals 16, 20 and 21 of Directive 2000/78 state:
‘(16)      The provision of measures to accommodate the needs of disabled people at the workplace plays an important role in combating discrimination on grounds of disability.
…
(20)      Appropriate measures should be provided, i.e. effective and practical measures to adapt the workplace to the disability, for example adapting premises and equipment, patterns of working time, the distribution of tasks or the provision of training or integration resources.
(21)      To determine whether the measures in question give rise to a disproportionate burden, account should be taken in particular of the financial and other costs entailed, the scale and financial resources of the organisation or undertaking and the possibility of obtaining public funding or any other assistance.’
8        Article 1 of that directive, headed ‘Purpose’, provides:
‘The purpose of this Directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment.’
9        Article 2 of that directive, headed ‘Concept of discrimination’, provides:
‘1.      For the purposes of this directive, the “principle of equal treatment” shall mean that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1.
2.      For the purposes of paragraph 1:
(a)      direct discrimination shall be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1;
(b)      indirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having a particular religion or belief, a particular disability, a particular age, or a particular sexual orientation at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons unless:
(i)      that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary, …
…
5.      This Directive shall be without prejudice to measures laid down by national law which, in a democratic society, are necessary for public security, for the maintenance of public order and the prevention of criminal offences, for the protection of health and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’
10      Article 3 of that directive, headed ‘Scope’, provides, in paragraph 1(a) and (c) thereof:
‘Within the limits of the areas of competence conferred on the [European] Community, this Directive shall apply to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies, in relation to:
(a)      conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria and recruitment conditions, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the professional hierarchy, including promotion;
…
(c)      employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay’.
11      Article 5 of Directive 2000/78, headed ‘Reasonable accommodation for disabled persons’, provides:
‘In order to guarantee compliance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to persons with disabilities, reasonable accommodation shall be provided. This means that employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. This burden shall not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by measures existing within the framework of the disability policy of the Member State concerned.’
12      Article 7 of that directive, headed ‘Positive action’, provides:
‘1.      With a view to ensuring full equality in practice, the principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting specific measures to prevent or compensate for disadvantages linked to any of the grounds referred to in Article 1.
2.      With regard to disabled persons, the principle of equal treatment shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States to maintain or adopt provisions on the protection of health and safety at work or to measures aimed at creating or maintaining provisions or facilities for safeguarding or promoting their integration into the working environment.’
Italian law
Law No 104/1992
13      Article 21 of legge n. 104 – Legge-quadro per l’assistenza, l’integrazione sociale e i diritti delle persone handicappate (Law No 104 – Framework law promoting assistance, social inclusion and rights for persons with disabilities) of 5 February 1992 (GURI No 39 of 17 February 1992 – Ordinary Supplement to the GURI No 30; ‘Law No 104/1992’), states:
‘1.      Persons with disabilities whose degree of incapacity is more than two thirds or who have a disability listed in the first, second or third categories of Table A annexed to [legge n. 648 – Riordinamento delle disposizioni sulle pensioni di guerra (Law No 648 on the reorganisation of provisions on war pensions) of 10 August 1950 (GURI No 200 of 1 September 1950)], recruited by public bodies as successful candidates in a competition or on other grounds, shall have the right to priority in choosing a position from among those available.
2.      The persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall have priority in matters of transfer on request.’
14      Article 33(6) of that law provides:
‘Adult persons with severe disabilities may benefit in turn from the leave referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, have the right to choose, as far as possible, the workplace closest to their home, and may not be transferred to another place of work without their consent.’
Legislative Decree No 297
15      Article 465(1) of Decreto legislativo n. 297 – Approvazione del testo unico delle disposizioni legislative vigenti in materia di istruzione, relative alle scuole di ogni ordine e grado (Legislative Decree No 297 approving the consolidated text of the applicable legislative provisions on education relating to schools of all types and levels) of 16 April 1994 (GURI No 115 of 19 May 1994, Ordinary Supplement No 79; ‘Legislative Decree No 297’), provides:
‘Pending implementation of the provisions of Article 470(1), requests for transfers within the same province shall be dealt with prior to requests for transfer from another province.’
16      Article 470 of that decree reads as follows:
‘1.      Specific agreements concluded between the trade unions and the [Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (Ministry of Education, University and Research, Italy)] shall lay down the timetable and arrangements for equalising occupational mobility (change in teaching discipline or educational stage) and territorial mobility, and for moving away from the division between posts reserved for interprovincial mobility and those reserved for permanent appointments, so that the latter are made on the residual posts that remain vacant and available after completion of occupational and territorial mobility operations each school year.
2.      The agreements referred to in paragraph 1 shall also determine the order of priority between the various mobility operations, the criteria and procedures for drawing up the relevant lists, as well as the criteria for finalising changes in teaching discipline or educational stage under the assignment operations referred to in Article 479, it being understood that transitions to support posts are subject to possession of the required specialist qualification. Seniority shall not be taken into account for changes with regard to educational stage provided for in this article.’
17      Article 601 of that decree provides:
‘1.      Articles 21 and 33 of [Law No 104/1992] shall apply to the staff covered by this consolidated text.
2.      The abovementioned rules confer a right of priority with regard to permanent appointment, recruitment as interim staff, and mobility.’
Legislative Decree No 216
18      Article 3(3-bis) of decreto legislativo n. 216 – Attuazione della direttiva 2000/78/CE per la parità di trattamento in materia di occupazione e di condizioni di lavoro e della direttiva n. 2014/54/UE relativa alle misure intese ad agevolare l’esercizio dei diritti conferiti ai lavoratori nel quadro della libera circolazione dei lavoratori (Legislative Decree No 216 implementing Directive 2000/78/EC on equal treatment in employment and occupation and Directive 2014/54/EU on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers) of 9 July 2003 (GURI No 187 of 13 August 2003), in the version applicable to the main proceedings, provides:
‘In order to guarantee compliance with the principle of equal treatment of persons with disabilities, public and private employers are required to make reasonable accommodation, as defined by the [UN Convention], ratified under [legge n. 18 – Ratifica ed esecuzione della Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti delle persone con disabilità, con Protocollo opzionale, fatta a New York il 13 dicembre 2006 e istituzione dell’Osservatorio nazionale sulla condizione delle persone con disabilità (Law No 18 implementing the United Nations Convention of the Right of Persons with Disabilities and its optional Protocol and establishing the National Observatory for the conditions of persons with disabilities) of 3 March 2009 (GURI No 61 of 14 March 2009], in the workplace to ensure full equality of persons with disabilities with other workers. Public employers shall ensure the implementation of this subparagraph without introducing or increasing burdens on public finance, using the human, financial and operational resources available under the legislation in force.’
National collective labour agreement for school staff for the four-year regulatory period 2006-2009 and the two-year economic period 2006-2007
19      Under Article 10(1) of the contratto collettivo nazionale di lavoro relativo al personale del Comparto scuola per il quadriennio normativo 2006-2009 e biennio economico 2006-2007 (national collective labour agreement for school staff for the four-year regulatory period 2006-2009 and the two-year economic period 2006-2007), of 27 November 2007:
‘The criteria and procedures for implementing territorial mobility … of the staff covered by this agreement shall be defined in the context of supplementary national collective bargaining …’
The CCNI
20      Article 6(2) of the contratto collettivo nazionale integrativo concernente la mobilità del personale docente, educativo ed A.T.A. per l’a.s. 2017/2018 (additional national collective agreement on the mobility of teaching, educational and auxiliary, technical and administrative staff for the school year 2017/2018) of 11 April 2017 (‘the CCNI’) states:
‘Mobility within the same province takes precedence over mobility between different provinces …’
21      Article 13(1) of the CCNI provides:
‘1.      System of priorities
The priorities set out in this article are grouped systematically by category and are taken into account, in the following order of priority, in solely territorial mobility operations to which they apply, with the sole exception of point I, which also applies to occupational mobility operations. …
I.      Incapacity and serious health conditions
In territorial and occupational mobility operations, regardless of the province of origin of the person concerned, absolute priority is given to all teaching staff who, in
order, belong to the following categories:
(1)      blind teaching staff …
(2)      staff undergoing haemodialysis …
The teacher has priority over all school preferences indicated and over all preferences for the purposes of permanent appointment in the area.
…
III.      Staff with disabilities requiring special and ongoing care
In the context of transfer procedures, priority is given, in the order stated, to school staff who are in the following situations:
(1)      persons with disabilities referred to in Article 21 of [Law No 104/1992], to which Article 601 of [Legislative Decree No 297] refers, whose degree of incapacity is more than two thirds or who has a disability listed in the first, second or third categories of Table A annexed to [Law No 648 on the reorganisation of provisions on war pensions)] …
…
The staff members referred to in point III(1)… may avail themselves of that priority within the province in which their municipality of residence is situated, and only in respect of that province, provided that they have expressed as their first preference one or more school establishments located in that municipality or have designated the district corresponding to that municipality or part thereof if they intend to express preferences for teaching establishments in other municipalities or other districts or provinces. …’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
22      C.M., who has a disability, has been a permanent teacher since 2016. She works in Ostiglia, which is located in the province of Mantua (Italy).
23      On 31 October 2017, following an expert medical examination, the medical committee responsible for assessing incapacity found that she had a disability entailing a permanent reduction in her work capacity of 70%.
24      As part of the national mobility programme for the 2018/2019 school year organised by the Ministry of Education, University and Research, C.M. requested a transfer to the province of Catanzaro (Italy), invoking the priority afforded, under Article 21 of Law No 104/1992, to persons with disabilities whose degree of incapacity is more than two thirds.
25      C.M.’s transfer request was rejected on the ground of a lack of posts in that province, the vacant positions having been filled through internal transfers within the province.
26      C.M. brought an action against the rejection of her transfer request before the Tribunale di Mantova (District Court, Mantua, Italy), seeking a declaration of her right to be transferred to the province of Catanzaro. That action was dismissed.
27      C.M. brought an appeal against the judgment of that court before the Corte d’appello di Brescia (Court of Appeal, Brescia, Italy), which dismissed it on the ground that the priority of persons with disabilities in relation to transfers, provided for in Article 13 of the CCNI, applies only in the context of mobility procedures within the same province. Thus, interprovincial transfer requests can be examined only after intraprovincial transfer requests have been processed. Only blind teachers or those undergoing haemodialysis benefit from so-called ‘absolute’ priority for transfers within the same province or between provinces.
28      C.M. brought an appeal against the judgment of the Corte d’appello di Brescia (Court of Appeal, Brescia) before the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy), which is the referring court.
29      Before that court, C.M. argued that the public-school staff mobility scheme, under which requests for interprovincial transfers can only be considered after requests for intraprovincial transfers have been processed, constitutes an obstacle to the effectiveness of the protection afforded, under Article 21 of Law No 104/1992, to any person with a disability whose degree of incapacity is more than two thirds. She notes that such a person would only be eligible for the remaining posts in the desired province. As a result of the interprovincial stage of the mobility process following the intraprovincial stage, when interprovincial transfer requests are examined, the posts initially available may have already been filled on the basis of intraprovincial transfer requests submitted by teachers who do not have disabilities, thereby depriving of effect the priority accorded to teachers covered by Article 21. The applicant in the main proceedings therefore considers that, like blind teachers or teachers undergoing haemodialysis, she should, by virtue of her status as a person with a disability, recognised under that Article 21, be entitled to absolute priority in terms of mobility.
30      For its part, the Ministry of Education and Merit contends that the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds that C.M.’s right to be transferred is subject to the availability of posts in the desired province. In the present case, although C.M. has priority under Article 21(2) of Law No 104/1992, her transfer request could not be granted because there were no vacant posts in the desired province.
31      The referring court points out that Article 21(2) provides that teachers with disabilities whose degree of incapacity is more than two thirds have priority in terms of transfers, and that that provision forms part of the rules applicable to territorial mobility – which include Article 465(1) of Legislative Decree No 297, read in conjunction with Article 6(2) of the CCNI, which provides that teachers’ requests for transfer within the same province are to be given priority over requests for transfer between provinces.
32      However, that priority granted
in respect of intraprovincial transfers, which, according to that court, makes it possible to manage complex staff mobility operations across the national territory in the best possible way so that the school year starts smoothly, could disadvantage teachers covered by Article 21 of Law No 104/1992 as compared with other teachers, given the progressive reduction in the number of posts available in education. As a result, that court considers it necessary to ask the Court of Justice whether Article 465(1) of Legislative Decree No 297, read in conjunction with Article 6(2) of the CCNI, is compatible with EU law.
33      In those circumstances, the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1)      Must Article 5 (‘Reasonable accommodation for disabled persons’) of [Directive 2000/78] be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as the Italian legislation contained in the [CCNI], which, by reason of the combined provisions of …
Article 6(2) and Article 13(1) [thereof] grants the priority referred to in Article 13(1)(III)(1) to the disabled school staff referred to in Article 21 of Law No 104/1992, mentioned in Article 601 of Legislative Decree [No 297], making mobility within a province take precedence over mobility between provinces?
(2)      Within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b)(i) of Directive 2000/78, is the particular disadvantage at which teachers with a disability [amounting to incapacity] of more than two thirds may be put by the abovementioned national provisions objectively justified by a legitimate aim, ensuring that highly complex territorial mobility operations which involve the whole of the national territory are carried out by the beginning of the school year, and are the means of achieving that aim appropriate, not going beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued by the legislation and agreements? Or, on the contrary, does the abovementioned legislation discriminate against the abovementioned teachers, resulting in the de facto loss of the priority granted in mobility procedures, because [that priority relates] only to mobility within a province, and not between provinces, and thus the priority is not absolute (as is provided for in the case of other categories of persons with disabilities)?’
The Court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
34      The Italian Government argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction to examine the questions referred, as they concern the assessment of the compatibility with Directive 2000/78 of the provisions of a collective agreement, namely Articles 6 and 13 of the CCNI, and not of the provisions of a legislative or regulatory act.
35      The Italian Government adds that Article 64 of Legislative Decree No 165 – Norme generali sull’ordinamento del lavoro alle dipendenze delle amministrazioni pubbliche (Legislative Decree No 165 laying down general rules concerning the organisation of employment in public authorities) of 30 March 2001 (GURI No 106 of 9 May 2001) provides for the referral of questions concerning the efficiency, validity or interpretation of a collective agreement to the Agenzia per la rappresentanza negoziale pubbliche amministrazioni (ARAN) (Agency for the representation of the public authorities, Italy).
36      In its view, in any event, even if the Court were to find that Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding Articles 6 and 13 of the CCNI, the referring court would be required to apply Article 465 of Legislative Decree No 297, which provides that requests for transfer within the same province are to be dealt with before requests for transfer from another province, with the result that that question would be irrelevant for the purpose of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings.
37      In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the system of cooperation established by Article 267 TFEU is based on a clear division of responsibilities between the national courts and the Court of Justice. In proceedings brought on the basis of that Article 267, the interpretation of provisions of national law is a matter for the courts of the Member States, not for the Court of Justice, and the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the compatibility of rules of national law with EU law. However, the Court does have jurisdiction to provide the national court with all the guidance as to the interpretation of EU law necessary to enable that court to determine whether those national rules are compatible with EU law (judgment of 18 November 2020, Syndicat CFTC, C‑463/19, EU:C:2020:932, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
38      Although it is true that, formally, by its questions, read in the light of the grounds of the order for reference, the referring court requests the Court of Justice to rule on the compatibility of provisions of national law with EU law, the fact remains that the Court may give a useful answer to those questions by providing the referring court with guidance as to the interpretation of EU law that will enable that court itself to rule on the compatibility of the national rules with EU law. Consequently, in so far as the questions concern the interpretation of EU law, the Court is, in principle, required to give a ruling (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 November 2020, Syndicat CFTC, C‑463/19, EU:C:2020:932, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
39      In that respect, it should be borne in mind that questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling from a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgment of 18 December 2025, Tenergie (Request for remission of import duties), C‑259/24, EU:C:2025:1013, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
40      In the present case, the questions referred concern the interpretation of the principle of equal treatment guaranteed by Directive 2000/78, Article 5 thereof, which concerns ‘reasonable accommodation for disabled persons’, and Article 2(2)(b)(i) of that directive, which concerns the reasons which may justify a difference in treatment.
41      Furthermore, it must be noted that the order for reference sufficiently sets out the factual and regulatory context of the questions referred and the reasons which led the referring court to doubt the compatibility of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings with EU law. Therefore, it does not appear that those questions are unrelated to the actual facts or the purpose of the main proceedings or that they concern a hypothetical problem.
42      It follows that the Court has jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, and that those questions are admissible.
Consideration of the questions referred
The first question
43      By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 5 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which lays down rules relating to territorial and
occupational mobility which give priority in terms of transfers to certain teachers with disabilities, while giving precedence to intraprovincial transfers over interprovincial transfers.
44      As a preliminary point, it should be noted that it is clear from the title of, and preamble to, Directive 2000/78, as well as from its content and purpose, that that directive is intended to establish a general framework for ensuring that everyone benefits from equal treatment ‘in matters of employment and occupation’ by providing effective protection against discrimination based on any of the grounds listed in Article 1 thereof, which include disability (judgment of 11 September 2025, Bervidi, C‑38/24, EU:C:2025:690, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).
45      In accordance with Article 3(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 2000/78, that directive applies, within the limits of the areas of competence conferred on the European Union, to all persons, both in the public and private sectors, including public bodies, as regards, inter alia, conditions for access to employment as well as employment and working conditions (judgment of 11 September 2025, Bervidi, C‑38/24, EU:C:2025:690, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).
46      In the present case, it is necessary to examine whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which gives certain teachers with disabilities priority with regard to transfers, implements ‘reasonable accommodation’, within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive.
47      Under that provision, in order to guarantee compliance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to persons with disabilities, reasonable accommodation must be provided, which means that employers are to take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. That burden will not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by measures existing within the framework of the disability policy of the Member State concerned.
48      It is clear from Article 5 of Directive 2000/78, read in the light of recital 20 thereof, that appropriate measures, within the meaning of that Article 5, are effective and practical measures to adapt the workplace to the disability, for example adapting premises and equipment, patterns of working time, the distribution of tasks or the provision of training or integration resources.
49      However, that recital 20 provides a non-exhaustive list of appropriate measures, which may be physical, organisational and/or educational, since Article 5 of that directive, read in the light of Article 2 of the UN Convention, prescribes a broad definition of the concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 February 2022, HR Rail, C‑485/20, EU:C:2022:85, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
50      It is important to note that the provisions of the UN Convention may be relied on for the purposes of interpreting the provisions of Directive 2000/78, with the result that the latter must, as far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with that convention (judgment of 11 September 2025, Pauni, C‑5/24, EU:C:2025:689, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
51      In accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 2 of that convention, ‘reasonable accommodation’ must be understood as meaning ‘necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.’
52      The reference made in recital 20 of Directive 2000/78 to the adaptation of ‘the workplace’ must be understood as meaning that that adaptation should be made as a matter of priority having regard to other measures which make it possible to adapt the working environment for the person with a disability in order to enable him or her to participate fully and effectively in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. Accordingly, those measures may include the implementation by the employer of measures which make it possible for that person to remain in employment, such as a reassignment to another position (judgment of 10 February 2022, HR Rail, C‑485/20, EU:C:2022:85, paragraph 41).
53      Recital 21 of Directive 2000/78 specifies that to determine whether the measures in question give rise to a disproportionate burden, account should be taken in particular of the financial and other costs entailed, the scale and financial resources of the organisation or undertaking and the possibility of obtaining public funding or any other assistance.
54      Thus, the concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive should be understood broadly as referring to the elimination of the various barriers that hinder the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in professional life on an equal basis with other workers (judgment of 21 October 2021, Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, C‑824/19, EU:C:2021:862, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited).
55      However, according to the wording of Article 5, ‘employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case’.
56      As the European Commission points out in its written observations, in order to provide the reasonable accommodation necessary to enable a worker with a disability to have access to, participate in or advance in employment, within the meaning of Article 5, it is therefore necessary to have a concrete understanding of the needs specific to that worker’s situation and the difficulties and obstacles which that worker encounters in accessing and performing his or her work.
57      In that respect, it follows from the case-law of the Court that, where a worker becomes permanently incapable of remaining in his or her job because of the onset of a disability, reassignment to another job may constitute an appropriate measure in the context of reasonable accommodation within the meaning of that Article 5, since it makes it possible for that worker to remain in employment, by enabling him or her to participate fully and effectively in professional life on an equal basis with other workers (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 February 2022, HR Rail, C‑485/20, EU:C:2022:85, paragraphs 41 and 43).
58      However, the possibility of assigning a person with a disability to another job is only available where there is at least one vacancy that the worker in question is capable of holding (judgment of 18 January 2024, Ca Na Negreta, C‑631/22, EU:C:2024:53, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).
59      In the present case, in accordance with Article 465(1) of Legislative Decree No 297, read in conjunction with Article 6(2) of the CCNI, the examination of intraprovincial transfer requests precedes the examination of interprovincial transfer requests.
60      In accordance with Article 21 of Law No 104/1992, priority in terms of transfers is accorded to persons with disabilities whose degree of incapacity is more than two thirds.
61      It is true that, as is apparent from paragraphs 54 to 58 of this judgment, the concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’, within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2000/78, must be understood broadly, as covering all measures that enable the needs of a person with a disability to be met in a particular case.
62      However, the national scheme at issue in the main proceedings, as set out in paragraphs 59 and 60 of this judgment, appears to provide for measures of a general and abstract nature and cannot, therefore, be regarded as providing for measures adopted, in relation to the person with a disability in question, ‘where needed in a particular case’, within the meaning of that Article 5.
63      It is apparent from the order for reference that the priority in terms of transfers provided for by that national scheme is granted to the persons concerned automatically depending on the category to which their disability belongs, including the degree of their incapacity, without any provision for taking into account, where appropriate, their specific needs in a particular case.
64      It follows that this priority in terms of transfers cannot be regarded as implementing ‘reasonable accommodation’ within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2000/78, which is nevertheless for the referring court to verify.
65      In view of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 5 of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that provides for a scheme regarding territorial
and occupational mobility that gives priority in terms of transfers to certain teachers with disabilities while giving precedence to intraprovincial transfers over interprovincial transfers, since that scheme, given that it does not take into account the specific needs of persons with disabilities in particular cases, does not come within the scope of the concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’, within the meaning of that provision.
The second question
66      By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that a national scheme regarding territorial
and occupational mobility that gives priority in terms of transfers to certain teachers with disabilities over teachers who do not have disabilities, while giving precedence to intraprovincial transfers over interprovincial transfers, constitutes indirect discrimination within the meaning of that provision, to the detriment of teachers who requested an interprovincial transfer, which cannot be justified by the objective of ensuring the transfer of teachers throughout the national territory in anticipation of the start of the school year.
67      As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that that directive gives specific expression, within the field that it covers, of the general principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which prohibits any discrimination based, inter alia, on disability. Moreover, Article 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that the European Union is to recognise and respect the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community (judgment of 11 September 2025, Pauni, C‑5/24, EU:C:2025:689, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
68      Under Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/78, for the purposes of that directive, the ‘principle of equal treatment’ is to be understood to mean that there is to be no direct or indirect discrimination based, inter alia, on disability. It is also apparent from Article 2(2)(b) of that directive that, for the purposes of Article 2(1) thereof, indirect discrimination is to be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons with a particular disability at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons.
69      In that respect, it should be noted that unfavourable treatment on grounds of disability does not undermine the protection provided for by Directive 2000/78 unless it constitutes discrimination within the meaning of Article 2 of that directive. A worker with a disability covered by that directive must be protected against all discrimination as compared to a worker who does not have a disability. It is therefore necessary to examine whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is liable, in relation to those two categories of workers, to constitute indirect discrimination against persons with disabilities (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 September 2025, Pauni, C‑5/24, EU:C:2025:689, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
70      It is thus for the referring court to assess, in the light of the circumstances at issue in the main proceedings, whether the applicable national legislation is liable to result in a ‘particular disadvantage’ to the detriment of workers with disabilities within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of that directive.
71      In that regard, it should be noted that it follows neither from the words ‘particular disadvantage’ used in Article 2(2)(b) nor from the other details contained in that provision that such a disadvantage would exist only where there is a serious, obvious and particularly significant case of inequality. That concept must be understood as meaning that it is particularly persons protected by that directive, which include workers with disabilities, who, because of the provision, criterion or practice in question, are disadvantaged (judgment of 11 September 2025, Pauni, C‑5/24, EU:C:2025:689, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).
72      Accordingly, the existence of such a particular disadvantage could be established, for example, if it were proved that that provision, criterion or practice is to the disadvantage of a significantly greater proportion of workers with disabilities as compared with those without disabilities (judgment of 11 September 2025, Pauni, C‑5/24, EU:C:2025:689, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).
73      However, it must be noted that it is not apparent from the documents before the Court that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a disadvantage for C.M. linked to her disability compared with teachers who do not have disabilities.
74      Indeed, and as the Commission argues in its written observations, it appears, on the contrary, that C.M. is in a situation that is, if anything, advantageous in this regard compared with teachers who do not have a disability, in so far as she benefits from the priority in terms of transfers afforded by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, whereas the latter teachers do not benefit from it at all, since they are able to apply only for posts that remain vacant after all priority requests have been granted.
75      Furthermore, all teachers, whether they have disabilities or not, who request an interprovincial transfer, are adversely affected by the rule that intraprovincial transfer requests are examined before those for interprovincial transfers, in that, after the examination of intraprovincial transfer requests, the number of posts available to satisfy interprovincial transfer requests is significantly reduced.
76      Therefore, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings cannot be regarded as causing C.M. a ‘particular disadvantage’, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78, compared with teachers who do not have disabilities, nor, consequently, as establishing a difference in treatment indirectly based on disability for the purposes of that provision.
77      In the absence of such a ‘particular disadvantage’, there is therefore no need to examine whether that legislation can be justified by the objective of ensuring the transfer of teachers throughout the national territory in anticipation of the start of the school year, or whether the means of achieving that objective are appropriate and necessary, in accordance with Article 2(2)(b)(i) of that directive.
78      That being said, it must be noted that, in its written observations, the Commission argues that, while the national regulation at issue in the main proceedings constitutes positive action within the meaning of Article 7 of that directive, it operates a difference in treatment based on the disability of the persons concerned. Under Article 13(1)(I) of the CCNI, blind persons and persons undergoing haemodialysis have ‘absolute’ priority with regard to transfers, in that that priority applies to both intraprovincial and interprovincial transfer requests. By contrast, in accordance with Article 13(1)(III) of the CCNI, persons with disabilities whose degree of incapacity is more than two thirds have only ‘relative’ priority, in that that priority applies only to intraprovincial transfer requests. It must, however, be noted in that regard that the referring court does not provide specific information enabling the context or the reasons serving as the basis for the distinction between the different categories of persons with disabilities under those provisions to be taken into account.
79      In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Directive 2000/78 is intended to protect a worker who has a disability, for the purposes of that directive, against any discrimination on the basis of that disability, not only as compared with workers who do not have disabilities, but also as compared with other workers who have disabilities (judgment of 26 January 2021, Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej Krakowie, C‑16/19, EU:C:2021:64, paragraph 36).
80      Where a worker is treated less favourably than another worker is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation and where it is established, having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the case, that that unfavourable treatment is based on the former worker’s disability, inasmuch as it is based on a criterion which is inextricably linked to that disability, such treatment is contrary to the prohibition of direct discrimination set out in Article 2(2)(a) of that directive (judgment of 26 January 2021, Szpital Kliniczny im. dra J. Babińskiego Samodzielny Publiczny Zakład Opieki Zdrowotnej Krakowie, C‑16/19, EU:C:2021:64, paragraph 48).
81      In any event, the Court has held that direct discrimination based on one of the grounds referred to in Article 1 of Directive 2000/78, such as disability, may be justified on the basis of Article 2(5) of that directive or Article 7 thereof (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 January 2019, Cresco Investigation, C‑193/17, EU:C:2019:43, paragraph 52).
82      It follows from the Court’s case-law that any justification must be examined in the light of the objective pursued by the legislation concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 January 2019, Cresco Investigation, C‑193/17, EU:C:2019:43, paragraphs 54 and 66).
83      In the present case, in the absence of sufficient information as to the objective pursued by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, the Court is unable to express its views on the comparability of the situations of the various categories of persons with disabilities for the purposes of the case-law referred to in paragraph 80 of this judgment. Moreover, for the same reason, the Court is also unable to assess whether such legislation could be justified on the basis of the provisions referred to in paragraph 81 of this judgment.
84      In light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation on territorial
and occupational mobility which gives priority in terms of transfers to certain teachers with disabilities over teachers who do not have disabilities, while giving precedence to intraprovincial transfers over interprovincial transfers, does not constitute indirect discrimination, within the meaning of that provision, to the detriment of teachers who have made an interprovincial transfer request.
Costs
85      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby rules:
1.      Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that provides for a scheme regarding territorial and occupational mobility which gives priority in terms of transfers to certain teachers with disabilities while giving precedence to intraprovincial transfers over interprovincial transfers, since that scheme, given that it does not take into account the specific needs of persons with disabilities in particular cases, does not come within the scope of the concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ within the meaning of that provision.
2.      Article 2(2)(b) Directive 2000/78
must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation on territorial and occupational mobility which gives priority in terms of transfers to certain teachers with disabilities over teachers who do not have disabilities, while giving precedence to intraprovincial transfers over interprovincial transfers, does not constitute indirect discrimination, within the meaning of that provision, to the detriment of teachers who have made an interprovincial transfer request.
[Signatures]
*      Language of the case: Italian.
i      The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.