On 13 May 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in Case C-155/25 (Commission v Italy), fully upholding the infringement action brought by the European Commission following a lengthy procedure. The Luxembourg Court held that the Italian legal system manifestly infringes Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work (annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC), owing to the complete absence of adequate measures to prevent and sanction the abuse of successive fixed-term contracts for administrative, technical and auxiliary (ATA) staff employed in State schools.

The judgment dismantles the Italian State’s defence, focusing on the intrinsic and structural shortcomings of the recruitment system for non-teaching school staff. As highlighted in the CJEU’s official Press Release, the European Framework Agreement, with the aim of limiting the use of fixed-term employment and promoting contracts of indefinite duration, requires Member States to adopt at least one restrictive measure, namely: objective reasons justifying the renewal of fixed-term employment relationships; the establishment of a maximum cumulative duration for successive fixed-term contracts; or the establishment of a maximum number of renewals.

The Court found that the Italian legislation (in particular Ministerial Decree No. 430/2000) permits the indefinite renewal of annual substitute contracts both for vacant posts (until 31 August) and for available positions (until 30 June). The Court clarified that the renewal of fixed-term contracts in order to meet needs that are, in reality, stable, permanent and structural cannot constitute an "objective reason."

The CJEU also censured the paradox concerning the seniority requirement in recruitment procedures based solely on qualifications (concorsi per soli titoli). Access to the permanent eligibility lists leading to permanent appointments requires at least 24 months of prior service. Far from preventing or sanctioning the abuse of fixed-term contracts, this requirement presupposes and encourages the structural precariousness of workers. The Italian system effectively compels ATA staff to endure the abusive renewal of successive fixed-term contracts as the only prerequisite for hoping to obtain permanent employment in the future.

The ordinary and extraordinary recruitment competitions organised over the years were regarded by the European judges as "unpredictable and sporadic." The Court reaffirmed its settled case-law, according to which a selection procedure whose timing and organisation are uncertain lacks the systematic character necessary to replace either a preventive measure or an effective sanction against the abusive use of precarious employment.

The judges firmly rejected the Italian Government's argument that the specific characteristics of the school sector, fluctuations in the student population and the protection of the right to education justify such extensive flexibility. Variability in staffing needs cannot become a pretext for making workers bear the burden of the State's managerial flexibility.

From the perspective of fundamental rights, the CJEU's judgment condemns a decades-long administrative practice that has had a detrimental impact on the living conditions, family planning and professional dignity of tens of thousands of ATA workers. The systematic renewal of fixed-term contracts effectively deprives workers of employment stability, a cornerstone of workers' protection also promoted by Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantees fair and just working conditions, and gives rise to an unjustified disparity in pay and employment conditions compared with permanent staff.

Following this severe condemnation, Italy no longer has any room for further delay and is required, as a matter of urgency, to amend the Consolidated Education Act (Legislative Decree No. 297/1994). Should the infringement persist, the European Commission may once again bring proceedings before the Court pursuant to Article 260 TFEU, seeking the imposition of substantial financial penalties, including both a lump sum and a daily penalty payment.

At the national level, the judgment may have far-reaching consequences. Since Italian law excludes the automatic conversion of fixed-term public employment into permanent employment, the ruling nevertheless entitles ATA workers who have been unlawfully subjected to abusive fixed-term employment to bring proceedings before the national labour courts in order to obtain compensation for the damage suffered, together with full recognition of their salary increments based on length of service and the alignment of their remuneration for periods of pre-permanent service.