Case C‑41/23 [Peigli] ( i )

AV and Others

v

Ministero della Giustizia

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato)

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 June 2024

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Clauses 2 and 4 – Principle of non-discrimination – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Honorary members of the judiciary and ordinary members of the judiciary – Clause 5 – Measures intended to penalise improper use of fixed-term contracts – Directive 2003/88/EC – Article 7 – Paid annual leave)

1. Social policy – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time – Paid annual leave – Honorary member of the judiciary covered by the concept of fixed-term worker and in a situation comparable to that of an ordinary member of the judiciary – Complete absence of entitlement to an allowance during the judicial holidays such as the one provided for ordinary members of the judiciary – Complete absence of a social security and compulsory insurance scheme covering accidents at work and occupational diseases such as the one provided for ordinary members of the judiciary – Not permissible

   (European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/88, Art. 7; Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, Clause 4)

   (see paragraphs 39-45, 48-60, operative part 1)

2. Social policy – Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP – Directive 1999/70 – Measures to prevent abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts – National legislation providing for successive renewals of fixed-term employment contracts in respect of honorary members of the judiciary – Lack of any measure to prevent and penalise the abuse of such renewals – Not permissible

   (Council Directive 1999/70, Annex, clause 5(1))

   (see paragraphs 62-65, 68-72, 74, operative part 2)

See the text of the decision.

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