CJEU Case C-543/23 / Judgment

AR v Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Type
Decision
Decision date
04/09/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2025:653
  • CJEU Case C-543/23 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    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

    Outcome of the case:

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

    Clause 4 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 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.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    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.

    ...

    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.

    ...

    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).

    ...

    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).

    ...

    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.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)