1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 157 TFEU, Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Clause 4.1 of the 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), Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22), 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), Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’), and the European Social Charter, signed in Turin on 18 October 1961 as amended (‘the European Social Charter’).
2 The request has been made in proceedings between AR and the Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito (Ministry of Education and Merit, Italy; ‘the Ministry of Education’) concerning the determination of AR’s length of service.
3 Pursuant to Clause 1 of the framework agreement, the purpose of that agreement is, first, to improve the quality of fixed-term work by ensuring the application of the principle of non-discrimination and, second, to establish a framework to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships.
4 Clause 2 of the framework agreement, headed ‘Scope’, provides, in paragraph 1: ‘This agreement applies to fixed-term workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship as defined in law, collective agreements or practice in each Member State.’
5 Clause 3 of that framework agreement, headed ‘Definitions’, is worded as follows:
6 Clause 4 of the framework agreement, headed ‘Principle of non-discrimination’, provides: …
7 Article 485 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 297/1994’), provides: ‘1. As regards teaching staff in secondary and art schools, periods of service completed as a teacher under a fixed-term contract in such State schools or scuole pareggiate (State-equivalent secondary schools), including those located abroad, shall be recognised as periods of permanent employment for legal and salary purposes, … 2. For the same purposes and to the same extent as referred to in paragraph 1, the teaching staff referred to therein shall be recognised as having completed periods of service at State educandati (girls’ schools run by religious bodies), periods of service as primary school teachers under fixed-term or permanent contracts at State primary schools or scuole parificate (State-accredited primary schools), including schools of the aforementioned educandati (girls’ schools run by religious bodies) and schools located abroad, and periods of service at scuole popolari (schools for adult education) and scuole sussidiate e sussidiarie (small State-funded schools run by private individuals or entities). 3. For the same purposes and subject to the same limitations referred to in paragraph 1, primary school teaching staff shall be recognised as having completed periods of service under fixed-term contracts in State primary schools, State educandati (girls’ schools run by religious bodies), scuole parificate (State-accredited primary schools), State secondary schools, State art schools and scuole pareggiate (State-equivalent secondary schools), scuole popolari (schools for adult education) and scuole sussidiate e sussidiarie (small State-funded schools run by private individuals or entities) …’
8 Article 1 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; ‘Law No 62/2000’) provides as follows: ‘1. Without prejudice to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 33 of the Constitution, the national education system shall consist of State schools and scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) and local authority schools. The main objective of the Republic is to broaden the educational offering and to generalise the corresponding demand for lifelong learning from childhood onwards. 2. For the purposes of all regulations currently in force, in particular with regard to the qualification as a teacher making it possible to award education qualifications with legal status, scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) shall mean non-State schools, including those run by local authorities, which, from nursery school, comply with general education regulations, are consistent with the teaching demands of families, and satisfy the quality and efficiency requirements referred to in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. 3. Scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) shall enjoy full freedom as regards cultural and pedagogical-didactic focus. Taking into account the educational concept of the school, education is guided by the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution. Since scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) provide a public service, they shall admit all persons who accept their educational concept and apply for enrolment, including pupils and students with disabilities. The educational concept may determine the cultural or religious orientation. However, extracurricular activities which presuppose or require adherence to a particular ideology or religious belief shall not be mandatory for pupils. 4. Non-States schools that make the relevant application and that expressly commit to implement the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, while meeting the following requirements, shall be recognised as being scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools):
9 Article 2(2) of decreto-legge del 3 luglio 2001, n. 255 - Disposizioni urgenti per assicurare l’ordinato avvio dell’anno scolastico 2001/2002 (Decree-Law No 255 of 3 July 2001 - Urgent provisions to ensure the orderly start to the academic year 2001/2002) of 3 July 2001 (GURI No 153 of 4 July 2001; ‘Decree-Law No 255/2001’) provides that, instead of organising public competitions with a view to recruiting permanent teaching staff, the Ministry of Education may use permanent reserve lists, which, from the moment of that law, are to be valid until they have been exhausted, in the context of which ‘teaching services provided from 1 September 2000 in scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) … shall be assessed in the same way as services provided in State schools.’
10 AR, a teacher qualified to teach Italian, history and geography, worked at a scuola paritaria (State-equivalent school), within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Law No 62/2000, during the period from 2002 to 2007, under five fixed-term contracts.
11 On 1 September 2008, AR was recruited by the Ministry of Education on a permanent basis to work as a teacher in a State school. During the assessment of what rights he had accrued during his career, which took place when he was recruited, the ministry classified him in the salary band corresponding to ‘zero years of service’. That ministry found, in essence, that Article 485 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994 did not permit account to be taken, for the purposes of calculating the length of service of the applicant in the main proceedings, of the years of work completed in the service of that scuola paritaria (State-equivalent school).
12 AR brought an action before the Tribunale di Padova (District Court, Padova, Italy), which is the referring court, 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.
13 On 25 February 2022, the non-profit trade union Anief - Associazione Professionale e Sindacale intervened in the proceedings before that court.
14 The referring court states that, under Legislative Decree No 297/1994, three types of private schools were recognised by the Ministry of Education as being equivalent to State schools, namely scuole parificate (State-accredited primary schools), legally recognised schools and scuole pareggiate (State-equivalent secondary schools). That legislative decree also provided that professional experience acquired by teachers in the performance of their duties at, inter alia, scuole pareggiate (State-equivalent secondary schools) and scuole parificate (State-accredited primary schools) must be taken into account when assessing what rights teachers had accrued during their careers when they are employed on a permanent basis by the ministry.
15 It appears that Law No 62/2000 replaced those three categories of private schools with a single category of schools, known as scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools). Under Article 2(2) of Decree-Law No 255/2001, professional experience acquired by teachers in employment with a school which, after 1 September 2000, would be recognised as a scuola paritaria (State-equivalent school) was to be regarded, when those teachers are recruited on a permanent basis by the same ministry, as being equivalent to experience acquired in the context of employment with a State school. However, it follows from the case-law of the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy) that that first experience cannot be taken into account when assessing what rights teachers have accrued during their careers upon their recruitment on a permanent basis by the Ministry of Education when classifying them into a length-of-service band, in particular because there is no legislative provision allowing that experience to be taken into account.
16 The referring court has doubts as to whether the fact that professional experience acquired in scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) is not taken into account when determining the salary of those teachers is in compliance with Clause 4 of the framework agreement.
17 It is claimed that the fact that such experience is not taken into account is tantamount to treating teachers who have worked under fixed-term relationships in scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) in a less favourable manner than teachers who have completed the same period of work under permanent contracts in State schools, whose experience acquired in such teaching would be taken into account when determining their salary, on the ground that those teachers who worked under fixed term contracts had not passed a competition to become civil servants.
18 The situations of those two categories of teachers are allegedly comparable, since there is no difference between the professional duties, training, tasks and obligations of a teacher performing his or her duties on a permanent basis in a State school and those of a teacher working on a fixed-term basis in a scuola paritaria (State-equivalent school), and the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) has recognised that those two categories of school are equal ‘in all respects’.
19 The referring court also considers that the failure to take into account experience acquired in scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) when determining salary is not justified by the fact that those schools are private establishments. The competence resulting from experience is independent of the private or public nature of the employer. In addition, the national legislature allowed account to be taken of periods of teaching completed with both private and public employers when calculating length of service, including periods completed by teachers under fixed-term contracts in State schools.
20 Nor can that failure to take those periods into account be justified by the differences between the arrangements for recruiting teachers in scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) and the arrangements for recruiting teachers in State schools. The existence of a public competition which makes it possible to be employed as a teacher on a permanent basis in State schools is irrelevant, since Article 485 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994 provides that periods of service completed both in schools in which teachers are recruited by competition and in schools where that is not the case are to be taken into account when calculating length of service upon recruitment on a permanent basis by the Ministry of Education.
21 The referring court takes the view that the failure to take into account teaching work completed in scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) when determining salary is also contrary to the principle of equal treatment, enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter. In that regard, it notes that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings unjustifiably differentiates between the teachers in scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) and the teachers, in particular, of former scuole pareggiate (State-equivalent secondary schools) and scuole parificate (State-accredited primary schools) that were converted into scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) in 2000. Experience acquired in a scuola paritaria (State-equivalent school) is treated as being of higher quality and value than that acquired with other private schools. Only the latter experience can be taken into account, under Article 485 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994, for the purposes of recognising a certain length of service.
22 Furthermore, Article 485 is contrary to the general principle of equal treatment in so far as it treats teachers in scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) and teachers working under fixed-term contracts in State schools differently.
23 According to the referring court, the Charter is applicable to the present case, since, first, its purpose is to determine whether the failure to take into account fixed-term work carried out in scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools), as provided for by Article 485 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994, is consistent with the objective pursued by the framework agreement of improving the quality of fixed-term work by ensuring compliance with the principle of non-discrimination, and, second, the applicant in the main proceedings is a ‘fixed-term worker’ within the meaning of Clause 3.1 of that framework agreement. Furthermore, an act of national law is an act ‘implementing Union law’, within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter, since it concerns a matter coming within the competence of the European Union. The present case, which concerns the conditions under which periods of teaching completed by teachers under fixed-term contracts are to be taken into account when determining their salary upon recruitment by the Ministry of Education as teachers under permanent contracts, undoubtedly comes within the scope of the ‘implementation of Union law’, within the meaning of Article 51(1), since it concerns the interpretation of Clause 4 of the framework agreement. In that regard, it is necessary to examine the compatibility of Article 485 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994 with the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination as regards employment conditions, as also enshrined in Article 157 TFEU, Article 14 ECHR, the European Social Charter and Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78.
24 In those circumstances the Tribunale di Padova (District Court, Padova) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
25 As a preliminary point, the Court notes that, in its written observations, the European Commission submits, inter alia, that the third question is inadmissible in so far as the referring court has not established any link between Article 21 of the Charter, referred to in that question, and the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings.
26 In addition, that question relates to the difference in treatment between, on the one hand, teachers employed on a fixed-term basis in scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools), within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Law No 62/2000, and, on the other hand, teachers who were equally employed on a fixed-term basis but either in private schools before the establishment of scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) or in State schools. It follows from the Court’s case-law that the principle of non-discrimination has been implemented and specifically applied by the framework agreement solely as regards differences in treatment as between fixed-term and permanent workers who are in a comparable situation, to the exclusion of differences in treatment between certain categories of fixed-term staff.
27 In that regard, the Court finds, in the first place, that, in so far as the argument set out in the paragraph above concerns the question of the applicability of the principle of non-discrimination and of the framework agreement to a difference in treatment such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, that issue relates to the substance of the third question, rather than to the admissibility of that question, with the result that it should be examined in the context of the examination of the substance of that question (see, by analogy, judgment of 19 September 2024, Consiglio nazionale delle Ricerche, C‑439/23, EU:C:2024:773, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).
28 In the second place, the Court notes that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, in the context of the cooperation between the Court and the national courts, the need to provide an interpretation of EU law which will be of use to the national court means that the national court is bound to observe scrupulously the requirements concerning the content of a request for a preliminary ruling, expressly set out in Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of which the national court is presumed to be aware (judgment of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi, C‑561/19, EU:C:2021:799, paragraph 68 and the case-law cited).
29 Thus, it is essential, as is stated in Article 94(c) of the Rules of Procedure that the request for a preliminary ruling itself contain a statement of the reasons which prompted the referring court or tribunal to inquire about the interpretation or validity of certain provisions of EU law, and the relationship between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the main proceedings (judgment of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi, C‑561/19, EU:C:2021:799, paragraph 69 and the case-law cited).
30 In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the referring court has sufficiently explained the link which it establishes between the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, and specified the reasons why it considers an interpretation of those principles to be necessary.
31 It follows that the third question is admissible.
32 As a preliminary point, the Court holds that, by its first and third questions, the referring court seeks an interpretation of Clause 4 of the framework agreement and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter.
33 In that regard, it must be recalled 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 (see, to that effect, 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).
34 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 (see, to that effect, order of 11 November 2010, Vino, C‑20/10, EU:C:2010:677, paragraph 56, and 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, paragraph 87).
35 In the present case, in so far as the first and third questions relate to such a difference in treatment, it is appropriate to examine them solely in the light of that directive and the framework agreement (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 July 2018, Vernaza Ayovi, C‑96/17, EU:C:2018:603, paragraph 20, and, by analogy, judgment of 15 May 2025, Melbán and Sergamo, C‑623/23 and C‑626/23, EU:C:2025:358, paragraph 49).
36 Consequently, the Court holds that, by its first and third questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Clause 4 of the framework agreement must be interpreted as precluding 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 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.
37 As regards the applicability of the framework agreement to a teacher in AR’s situation, the Court recalls that 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 (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 October 2012, Valenza and Others, C‑302/11 to C‑305/11, EU:C:2012:646, paragraphs 33 and 34, and of 19 September 2024, Consiglio nazionale delle Ricerche, C‑439/23, EU:C:2024:773, paragraph 38).
38 Since AR claims before the referring court that he is subject to a difference in treatment as regards the taking into account of teaching periods completed as a fixed-term worker, the Court holds that the framework agreement does apply, in principle, to a teacher in AR’s situation.
39 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 (judgment of 19 September 2024, Consiglio nazionale delle Ricerche, C‑439/23, EU:C:2024:773, paragraph 31).
40 In that regard, the Court has previously held that 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 (see, by analogy, judgment of 19 September 2024, Consiglio nazionale delle Ricerche, C‑439/23, EU:C:2024:773, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
41 That said, it is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraph 34 of the present judgment that 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.
42 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 (see, to that effect, judgments of 22 January 2020, Baldonedo Martín, C‑177/18, EU:C:2020:26, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited, and of 15 December 2022, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others (University researchers), C‑40/20 and C‑173/20, EU:C:2022:985, paragraph 88).
43 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 (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 January 2020, Baldonedo Martín, C‑177/18, EU:C:2020:26, paragraph 53 and 54 and the case-law cited).
44 In the present case, the Court notes that, as the Advocate General stated, in essence, in points 32 to 35 of her Opinion, 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.
45 It is apparent from the information provided by the referring court, first, that the failure to take into account periods of work completed as a fixed-term teacher in a scuola paritaria (State-equivalent school), when assessing what rights have been accrued during the careers of teachers upon their recruitment on a permanent basis by the Ministry of Education, results from the fact that scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools) are not mentioned in Article 485.
46 Consequently, that disregarding of periods of work completed by a teacher in a scuola paritaria (State-equivalent school) concerns both work completed on a permanent basis and work completed on a fixed-term basis in those schools.
47 That assessment is, moreover, confirmed by the applicant in the main proceedings himself, who submits, in his written observations submitted to the Court, that national law does not allow ‘either service completed on a fixed-term basis or service completed on a permanent basis in scuole paritarie (State-equivalent schools)’ to be taken into account.
48 Second, it is also apparent, in essence, from the information provided by the referring court that, in addition to the fact that national law provides that the work completed by teachers employed on a permanent basis in State schools and the length of service corresponding thereto are to be reflected in their salary, Article 485 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994 allows account to be taken of periods of work completed as teachers employed on a fixed-term basis in those schools when assessing what rights those teachers have accrued in their careers upon recruitment on a permanent basis by the Ministry of Education.
49 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), within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Law No 62/2000, 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 the light of the criteria established by the Court’s case-law, in comparable situations, with the result that the latter teachers may be classified as ‘comparable permanent workers’ within the meaning of Clause 3.2, the Court holds that 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.
50 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first and third questions is that Clause 4 of the framework agreement must be interpreted as not precluding 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.
51 As a preliminary point, the Court observes that, by its second question, the referring court seeks an interpretation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination in the field of employment, as enshrined in particular in the ECHR and the European Social Charter. It is settled case-law that the Court does not have jurisdiction to interpret the ECHR (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 February 2022, Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (Limitation period), C‑219/20, EU:C:2022:89, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited) or the European Social Charter (judgment of 29 July 2024, CU and ND (Social assistance - Indirect discrimination), C‑112/22 and C‑223/22, EU:C:2024:636, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
52 It follows that the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the second question in so far as it concerns the interpretation of the provisions of the ECHR and the European Social Charter.
53 Furthermore, in the light of the case-law referred to in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the present judgment, the Court concurs with the Commission’s submission that the referring court has not set out with the requisite precision and clarity the reasons why it considers an interpretation of Article 157 TFEU and Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78 necessary or of use for the purposes of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings, or the link which it establishes between those provisions of EU law and the national legislation applicable to that dispute.
54 Therefore, the second question is inadmissible in so far as it concerns the interpretation of Article 157 TFEU and Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78.
55 In those circumstances, the Court holds that, by its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which does not provide for the taking into account, when determining the length of service and salary of teachers upon their recruitment on a permanent basis at a State school, of periods of service previously completed by those teachers when they were employed on a fixed-term basis in certain schools that were not operated or organised by the State, but which are to be treated, under that legislation, as State schools, even though that legislation provides for account to be taken, when making that determination, of periods of service completed by those teachers when they were employed on a fixed-term basis in other schools, in particular State schools.
56 The Court notes that, according to settled case-law, where a legal situation does not come within the scope of EU law, the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on it and any provisions of the Charter relied upon cannot, of themselves, form the basis for such jurisdiction (judgment of 24 February 2022, Viva Telecom Bulgaria, C‑257/20, EU:C:2022:125, paragraph 128 and the case-law cited).
57 Accordingly, the provisions of the Charter apply, pursuant to Article 51(1) thereof, to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law. Article 6(1) TEU and Article 51(2) of the Charter make it clear that the Charter does not extend the field of application of EU law beyond the powers of the European Union, and does not establish any new power or task for the European Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined in the Treaties. The Court is, therefore, called upon to interpret, in the light of the Charter, the law of the European Union within the limits of the powers conferred on it (judgment of 17 March 2021, Consulmarketing, C‑652/19, EU:C:2021:208, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
58 In that regard, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that the concept of ‘implementing Union law’, as referred to in Article 51(1) of the Charter, presupposes a degree of connection between the measure of EU law and the national measure at issue which goes beyond the matters covered being closely related or one of those matters having an indirect impact on the other (judgment of 22 January 2020, Baldonedo Martín, C‑177/18, EU:C:2020:26, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited).
59 In accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, in order to determine whether a national measure involves ‘implementing of Union law’ for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter, it is necessary to determine, inter alia, whether that national legislation is intended to implement a provision of EU law; the nature of the legislation at issue and whether it pursues objectives other than those covered by EU law, even if it is capable of indirectly affecting EU law; and also whether there are specific rules of EU law on the matter or rules which are capable of affecting it (judgment of 22 January 2020, Baldonedo Martín, C‑177/18, EU:C:2020:26, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited).
60 In the present case, as is apparent from the examination of the first and third questions referred for a preliminary ruling, Clause 4 of the framework agreement does not preclude national legislation such as Article 485 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994, since the difference in treatment brought about by that national provision is not based on the fixed-term or permanent nature of the employment relationship of the workers concerned. As the Advocate General observed in point 50 of her Opinion, there is therefore no direct link between the application of Article 485 and the prohibition of discrimination laid down in that clause.
61 Furthermore, it is not apparent from the file before the Court that Article 485 is connected with any other provision of EU law.
62 Accordingly, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings cannot be regarded as ‘implementing Union law’ within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter.
63 Consequently, the difference in treatment brought about by the national rules at issue in the main proceedings cannot be assessed in the light of the guarantees provided for in the Charter or, in particular, Articles 20 and 21 thereof.
64 Accordingly, the Court holds that it does not have jurisdiction to answer the second question.
65 By its fourth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether EU law must be interpreted as requiring that court to disapply Article 485 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994 in the event that that national provision is considered to be incompatible with EU law.
66 In the light of the answers given to the first, second and third questions, there is no need to answer the fourth question.
67 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.