1.

Does the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Motter require Italy’s national rules on the reconstruction of teachers’ careers to be disapplied where, ‘in fact’, they are not more favourable for a teacher who was previously employed on a fixed-term basis than the career reconstruction carried out pursuant to Article 485 of decreto legislativo n. 297/1994 (Legislative Decree No 297/1994) and related rules? Or has Motter established in general and abstract terms — and thus in a way that applies to each individual case — that career reconstruction under national rules is compatible with clause 4, as a result of which the national court is not to disapply Article 485 of Legislative Decree No 297/1994 and related rules since they are compatible with EU law in that respect?

2.

In the alternative (that is to say, only if it were held that a selective disapplication of Article 485 was required under EU law, which should therefore be considered to be a ‘greater benefit’ rule), is clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43), to be interpreted as requiring national legislation to recognise — for the purpose of calculating the length of service accrued under fixed-term contracts of a teacher who subsequently became permanent — the work carried out by the teacher under fixed-term contracts without there being any minimum threshold as regards the number of days to have been worked in each academic year? Or, on the contrary, is a national rule compatible with clause 4 if it disregards the temporary work carried out by teachers (short-term and ad hoc supply teaching jobs), unless such work was carried out for at least 180 days in each academic year, or from 1 February until the end of the grading process (Article 11(14) of legge n. 124/1999 (Law No 124/1999), according to which ‘paragraph 1 of Article 489 of the consolidated law is to be understood as meaning that temporary teaching work carried out since the 1974-1975 academic year is treated as a full academic year if it was carried out over a minimum of 180 days or if it was carried out continuously from 1 February until the end of the final grading process’)?

3.

In the further alternative (that is to say, only if it were held that a selective disapplication of Article 485 was required under EU law, which should therefore be considered to be a ‘greater benefit’ rule), does clause 4 require fixed-term work carried out for a number of hours that is below the standard hours for permanent posts to be given equal value when calculating length of service once the teacher has become permanent? If not, the Court of Justice is asked to give its opinion on the minimum number of hours (for example part-time for an indefinite period) after which clause 4 would require such recognition in national law.

From another point of view, is a national law compatible with the abovementioned clause 4 if it disregards — for the purpose of recognition of the temporary period of service completed by a teacher who subsequently becomes permanent — work carried out on an hourly basis which is below the minimum weekly threshold for the number of hours worked part-time by a teacher in a comparable situation?

In the further alternative to the last sub-question, is a national law compatible with the abovementioned clause 4 if — for the purpose of recognition of temporary periods of service completed by a teacher who subsequently becomes permanent — it provides for weight to be given on a pro rata basis to work carried out on an hourly basis which is below the minimum weekly threshold for the number of hours worked part-time by a teacher in a comparable situation?