CJEU Case C-654/24 / Judgment

M.M. v Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Meri (Bariello)
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Fifth Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
29/01/2026
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2026:57
  • CJEU Case C-654/24 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 1999/70/EC – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Clause 4 – Principle of non-discrimination – Allowance granted in the form of an electronic card to support the in-service training of teachers and enhance their professional skills – Grant reserved to teachers employed on a permanent basis – Discrimination against teachers employed on a fixed-term basis – National case-law precluding the retrospective grant of the benefit in question to the teachers concerned where they are no longer employed in the school system – Substitution, under certain conditions, of a right to compensation for the harm suffered

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:

    Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 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

    must be interpreted as not precluding national case-law under which, regarding an action brought by a teacher employed on a fixed-term basis to remedy the wrongful deprivation – on account of the application of national legislation that is contrary to that provision – of the benefit of a financial advantage in the amount of EUR 500 per year, granted by means of an electronic card enabling the purchase of goods and services intended to support the in-service training of teachers, first, the retrospective grant of that card is subject to the condition that that teacher is still employed in the school system and, second, if that card is not granted retrospectively, that teacher may only claim compensation for the harm suffered as a result of that failure to grant the card subject to compliance with certain specific conditions, provided that (i) all of those conditions also apply to teachers employed on a permanent basis who apply for the same card to be granted retrospectively, and (ii) the procedural rules governing the exercise of that right to compensation also comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    34. By its single question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement, read in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national case-law under which, regarding an action brought by a teacher employed on a fixed-term basis in order to remedy the wrongful deprivation – on account of the application of national legislation that is contrary to the first of those provisions – of the benefit of a financial advantage in the amount of EUR 500 per year, granted by means of an electronic card enabling the purchase of goods and services intended to support the in-service training of teachers, first, the retrospective grant of that card is subject to the condition that that teacher still be employed in the school system and, second, if that card is not granted retrospectively, that teacher may only claim compensation for the harm suffered as a result of that failure to grant the card subject to his or her compliance with certain specific conditions.

    ...

    50. That said, and in view of the doubts expressed by the referring court, it is necessary, in the second place, to ascertain whether the conditions established by the case-law of the Corte suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation), set out in the question referred, are nevertheless liable to be contrary to clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement in that, even if they are not discriminatory in nature, they would undermine the effectiveness of that provision or the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, since former teachers employed on a fixed-term basis were deprived of the benefit of the electronic card in question under national legislation which, according to the order referred to in paragraph 35 above, is contrary to clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement.

    ...

    63. Among the requirements of EU law which must therefore be complied with as regards that right to compensation are those arising from the right to an effective remedy, enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 February 2024, X (Lack of reasons for termination), C‑715/20, EU:C:2024:139, paragraph 77), which constitutes a reaffirmation of the principle of effective judicial protection (judgment of 12 January 2023, Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság, C‑132/21, EU:C:2023:2, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited).

    64. That said, it is not apparent from the information provided by the referring court in what way the legal remedies available to M.M. in order to assert her right to compensation would not meet the requirements of EU law, in particular those provided for in Article 47 of the Charter, provided however that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness have been observed.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)