CJEU Case C-253/24 / Judgment

Ministero della Giustizia v NZ
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:2025:660
  • CJEU Case C-253/24 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Clause 4 – Principle of non-discrimination – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Honorary and ordinary members of the judiciary – Clause 5 – Measures intended to prevent and penalise misuse of successive fixed-term contracts – Directive 2003/88/EC – Article 7 – Right to paid annual leave – Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Assessment procedure in order to be permanently confirmed as an honorary member of the judiciary – Waiver, by operation of law, of claims arising from service as an honorary member of the judiciary prior to the assessment procedure – Loss of a right to paid annual leave conferred by EU law

    Outcome of the case:

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

    Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, set out in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, read in conjunction with Clause 4 of that agreement, Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

    must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, intended to penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts, which makes the application, for serving honorary members of the judiciary, to participate in an assessment procedure in order to be confirmed up to the age of 70, subject to the requirement to waive the right to paid annual leave arising from EU law, relating to their previous honorary employment relationship.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    39. In the present case, it appears that there is a close link between the two questions put by the referring court. Those questions relate to the rights which honorary members of the judiciary who were confirmed at the end of the assessment procedure can accordingly no longer claim. Thus, the first question relates to the interpretation of Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement, Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31 of the Charter and concerns, in particular, the loss of the right to paid leave for the period prior to that confirmation, whereas the second question relates to the interpretation of Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement and refers, more broadly, to the waiver of any right relating to that earlier period.

    ...

    43. The referring court therefore questions, in essence, whether that legislation is compatible with the provision which it intends to implement, namely Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement, intended to prevent and penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts, read in conjunction with Clause 4 of that agreement, and with Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, which gives concrete expression to the right to paid annual leave, enshrined in Article 31(2) of the Charter, on which a worker may rely against his or her employer (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 November 2023, Keolis Agen, C‑271/22 to C‑275/22, EU:C:2023:834, paragraph 28). It therefore appears appropriate to examine the questions referred together.

    44. In that regard, it should also be noted that, even though the referring court mentions, in the wording of the first question referred, Article 31(1) of the Charter, which enshrines the right of every worker to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity, it is apparent from the order for reference, and from the context of that question, that that court is in fact referring to Article 31(2).

    ...

    49. Consequently, it must be held that, by its questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement, read in conjunction with Clause 4 of that agreement, Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, intended to penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts, which makes the application, for serving honorary members of the judiciary, to participate in an assessment procedure in order to be confirmed until the age of 70, subject to the requirement to waive the right to paid annual leave arising from EU law, relating to their previous honorary employment relationship.

    ...

    64. Third, the application to participate in the assessment procedure entails waiving the right to paid annual leave for the period prior to that final confirmation guaranteed by Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter.

    ...

    72. It is settled case-law that that provision reflects and gives concrete expression to the fundamental right to an annual period of paid leave, enshrined in Article 31(2) of the Charter (judgment of 9 November 2023, Keolis Agen, C‑271/22 to C‑275/22, EU:C:2023:834, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited).

    73. Furthermore, the right to a period of paid annual leave, affirmed for every worker by Article 31(2) of the Charter, is, as regards its very existence, both mandatory and unconditional in nature, as that provision does not need to be given concrete expression by the provisions of EU or national law, which are only required to specify the exact duration of annual leave and, where appropriate, certain conditions for the exercise of that right. It follows that that provision is sufficient in itself to confer on workers a right that they may actually rely on in disputes between them and their employer in a field covered by EU law and therefore falling within the scope of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 November 2018, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, C‑684/16, EU:C:2018:874, paragraph 74).

    74. Thus, Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement, Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter preclude national legislation which, in contrast to what it provides in respect of ordinary members of the judiciary, does not give honorary members of the judiciary in a comparable situation any entitlement to remuneration during the vacation period when judicial activity is suspended (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 June 2024, Peigli, C‑41/23, EU:C:2024:554, paragraph 59).

    ...

    79. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement, read in conjunction with Clause 4 of that agreement, Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 and Article 31(2) of the Charter must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, intended to penalise the misuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts, which makes the application, for serving honorary members of the judiciary, to participate in an assessment procedure in order to be confirmed up to the age of 70, subject to the requirement to waive the right to paid annual leave arising from EU law, relating to their previous honorary employment relationship.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)