Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 March 2026 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione – Italy) – C.M. v Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito

(Case C-597/24,  (1) Zirvatta  (2) )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of disability - Article 2(2) - Right of a teacher with a disability to be transferred to a particular territorial area - Article 5 - Reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities - Priority for mobility within a territorial area as compared to mobility between different territorial areas)

(C/2026/2690)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: C.M.

Respondent: Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito

Other parties: Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Lombardia, Ambito Territoriale di Mantova, Ufficio Scolastico Regionale per la Calabria

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that provides for a scheme regarding territorial and occupational mobility which gives priority in terms of transfers to certain teachers with disabilities while giving precedence to intraprovincial transfers over interprovincial transfers, since that scheme, given that it does not take into account the specific needs of persons with disabilities in particular cases, does not come within the scope of the concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ within the meaning of that provision.

2.

Article 2(2)(b) Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation on territorial and occupational mobility which gives priority in terms of transfers to certain teachers with disabilities over teachers who do not have disabilities, while giving precedence to intraprovincial transfers over interprovincial transfers, does not constitute indirect discrimination, within the meaning of that provision, to the detriment of teachers who have made an interprovincial transfer request.

---

(1)  OJ C, C/2024/6925.

(2)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.