62023CJ0543_RES
Case C‑543/23 [Gnattai] (
i
)
AR
v
Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Padova)
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 September 2025
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Clause 4 – Teachers who have acquired professional experience in certain schools that are not operated or organised by the State – Recruitment on a permanent basis at a State school – Determination of length of service for the purposes of determining salary – National legislation not providing for account to be taken of periods of service completed in certain schools not operated or organised by the State – Difference in treatment based on a criterion other than the permanent or fixed-term nature of the employment relationship – Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Applicability – No implementation of EU law)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions relating to the applicability of EU law – Questions relating to the substance of the case – Admissible questions
(Art. 267 TFEU)
(see paragraph 27)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Need to provide the Court with sufficient information regarding the factual context and the connecting factor between the dispute in the main proceedings and the provisions of EU law referred to in the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Scope – Request providing sufficient information on the factual and legislative context – Whether it is possible for the Court to give an answer that is of use to the referring court – Admissibility
(Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20 and 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94(c))
(see paragraphs 28-31)
Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Scope – Differences in treatment between fixed-term workers and permanent workers who are in a comparable situation – Included
(Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clause 4)
(see paragraphs 34, 35)
Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Prohibition on discrimination against fixed-term workers – Worker employed on a fixed-term basis recruited as a permanent worker – Periods of employment completed in a school that is not operated or organised by the State – No taking into account of those periods when determining length of service and salary upon recruitment as a teacher on a permanent basis in a State school – Whether permissible
(Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clause 4.1)
(see paragraphs 36-46, 49, 50, operative part)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – National legislation not constituting a measure implementing EU law – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court
(Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1))
(see paragraphs 56-64)
Résumé
Ruling on a request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Padova (District Court, Padova, Italy) concerning recruitment on a permanent basis in State schools, the Court adjudicates, in the light of Clause 4.1 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC, (
1
) on the failure of national legislation to take account, when determining length of service, of periods of professional experience acquired by teachers in schools that are not operated or organised by the State, but which are treated in the same way as State schools.
AR, a teacher qualified to teach Italian, history and geography, worked at a scuola paritaria (State-equivalent school), as defined under Italian law, (
2
) during the period from 2002 to 2007, under five fixed-term employment contracts. On 1 September 2008, AR was recruited by the Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito (Ministry of Education and Merit, Italy; ‘the Ministry of Education’) on a permanent basis to work as a teacher in a State school. Upon recruitment, the Ministry of Education classified that teacher in the salary band corresponding to ‘zero years of service’, on the ground that Article 485 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994 (
3
) did not permit account to be taken, for the purposes of calculating AR’s length of service, of the years of service which he had completed in the service of that scuola paritaria (State-equivalent school).
AR brought an action before the Tribunale di Padova (District Court, Padova), seeking an order that the Ministry of Education take into account the length of service which he claims to have accrued by virtue of his employment in the scuola paritaria (State-equivalent school), claiming that Article 485 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994 constitutes an infringement of Clause 4 of the framework agreement and of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
In that context, the referring court has made a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. In particular, it questions whether the failure to take into account, when determining that teacher’s salary, professional experience previously acquired in scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) is compatible with Clause 4 of the framework agreement.
Findings of the Court
As a preliminary point, the Court recalls 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. 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 by Directive 1999/70, and in particular by Clause 4 of the framework agreement annexed to that directive.
As regards the applicability of the framework agreement to a teacher in AR’s situation, that framework agreement applies to all workers providing remunerated services in the context of a fixed-term employment relationship linking them to their employer. The mere fact that the person concerned has obtained the status of permanent worker does not mean that it is impossible for him or her to rely, in certain circumstances, on the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Clause 4 of the framework agreement. Since AR claimed that he was subject to a difference in treatment as regards the taking into account of teaching periods completed as a fixed-term worker, the framework agreement does apply, in principle, to a teacher in the applicant’s situation.
The Court notes that Clause 4.1 of the framework agreement prohibits, with regard to employment conditions, less favourable treatment of fixed-term workers as compared with permanent workers, solely because they are employed for a fixed term, unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds. Clause 4.4 of the framework agreement lays down the same prohibition as regards period-of-service qualifications relating to particular conditions of employment.
Although rules, such as those provided for in Article 485 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994, concerning periods of service to be completed in order to be classified in a salary band are covered by the concept of ‘employment conditions’ within the meaning of Clause 4.1 of the framework agreement, the principle of non-discrimination was implemented and given specific expression by Clause 4 of the framework agreement only as regards differences in treatment between fixed-term workers and permanent workers in a comparable situation. That clause seeks to apply the principle of non-discrimination to fixed-term workers only in order to prevent an employer from using such an employment relationship to deny those workers rights which are recognised for permanent workers. It follows that a difference in treatment that is based on a criterion other than whether the employment relationship is fixed-term or permanent is not covered by the prohibition laid down in Clause 4 of the framework agreement.
The Court finds, in the present case, that the difference in treatment resulting from Article 485 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994 is based not on the fixed-term or permanent nature of the employment relationship but on the nature of the school at which the professional experience was acquired by the workers concerned.
In those circumstances, even if it could be considered that teachers who had been employed on a fixed-term basis in scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) (
4
) before being recruited on a permanent basis by the Ministry of Education, and teachers employed on a permanent basis in State schools work in the same establishment, within the meaning of Clause 3.2 of the framework agreement, and that those two groups of workers are in comparable situations, a difference in treatment such as that resulting from Article 485 of that legislative decree is not covered by the prohibition laid down in Clause 4 of the framework agreement.
Consequently, the Court holds that Clause 4 of the framework agreement does not preclude national legislation which does not provide for account to be taken, when determining the length of service and the salary of teachers upon their recruitment on a permanent basis at a State school, of periods of service previously completed by those teachers in the context of fixed-term or permanent employment in certain schools that are not operated or organised by the State, but which are treated, under that legislation, as State schools, even though that legislation provides that periods of service completed by teachers employed in State schools, in particular on a permanent basis, are to be taken into account when determining their length of service and their salary.
As regards the question whether the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, preclude that national legislation, the Court concludes that the Charter is not applicable to the same national legislation, since that legislation does not implement EU law, within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter. The Court finds that, since the difference in treatment brought about by Article 485 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994 is not based on the fixed-term or permanent nature of the employment relationship of the workers concerned, there is no direct link between the application of Article 485 and the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Clause 4 of the framework agreement. Moreover, Article 485 does not appear to have any connection with any other provision of EU law. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to answer that question.
(
i
)	The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings.
(
1
)	Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 (‘the framework agreement’), which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).
(
2
)	Article 1(2) of Legge n. 62 – Norme per la parità scolastica e disposizioni sul diritto allo studio e all’istruzione (Law No 62 – Rules relating to school equality and provisions on the right to study and education) of 10 March 2000 (GURI No 67 of 21 March 2000).
(
3
)	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 297/1994’).
(
4
)	Within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Law No 62/2000.