AR v Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
Celex Number62023CJ0543
ECLIECLI:EU:C:2025:653
Date04 September 2025
Docket NumberC-543/23
CourtCourt of Justice (European Union)

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

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 )

In Case C‑543/23 [Gnattai], (i)

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Tribunale di Padova (District Court, Padova, Italy), made by decision of 14 August 2023, received at the Court on 28 August 2023, in the proceedings

AR

v

Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito,

intervener:

Anief – Associazione Professionale e Sindacale

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of I. Jarukaitis, President of the Chamber, N. Jääskinen, A. Arabadjiev (Rapporteur), M. Condinanzi and R. Frendo, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Kokott,

Registrar: G. Chiapponi, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 12 March 2025,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– AR, by G. Rinaldi and N. Zampieri, avvocati,

– Anief – Associazione Professionale e Sindacale, by A. Dal Ferro, F. Ganci and W. Miceli, avvocati,

– the Italian Government, by S. Fiorentino and G. Palmieri, acting as Agents, and by A. Berti Suman and L. Fiandaca, avvocati dello Stato,

– the European Commission, by S. Delaude and D. Recchia, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 5 June 2025,

gives the following

Judgment

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.

Legal context

European Union law

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:

‘1. For the purpose of this agreement the term “fixed-term worker” means a person having an employment contract or relationship entered into directly between an employer and a worker where the end of the employment contract or relationship is determined by objective conditions such as reaching a specific date, completing a specific task, or the occurrence of a specific event.

2. For the purpose of this agreement, the term “comparable permanent worker” means a worker with an employment contract or relationship of indefinite duration, in the same establishment, engaged in the same or similar work/occupation, due regard being given to qualifications/skills.

Where there is no comparable permanent worker in the same establishment, the comparison shall be made by reference to the applicable collective agreement, or where there is no applicable collective agreement, in accordance with national law, collective agreements or practice.’

6 Clause 4 of the framework agreement, headed ‘Principle of non-discrimination’, provides:

‘1. In respect of employment conditions, fixed-term workers shall not be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent workers solely because they have a fixed-term contract or relation unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds.

4. Period-of service qualifications relating to particular conditions of employment shall be the same for fixed-term workers as for permanent workers except where different length-of service qualifications are justified on objective grounds.’

Italian law

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):

(a) they have an educational concept that complies with the principles...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
1 cases
  • A.B. v Kärntner Landesregierung.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 27 November 2025
    ...della Carta eventualmente richiamate non possono giustificare, di per sé, tale competenza (sentenza del 4 settembre 2025, Gnattai, C‑543/23, EU:C:2025:653, punto 56 e giurisprudenza 35 Nel caso di specie, occorre rilevare che l’articolo 45, paragrafo 1, TFUE, che vieta, in linea di principi......