Judgment No. 10571 of 2024 and the Limit of Fixed-Term Contracts in Public Employment

The recent ruling No. 10571 of April 18, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides an important reflection on fixed-term contracts in the public sector. In particular, the judgment clarifies that in contractual public employment, the succession of fixed-term contracts cannot exceed the limit of thirty-six months, under penalty of considering the repetition as abusive. This principle is fundamental for the protection of workers' rights and to ensure stability in the public labor market.

The Context of the Ruling

The case in question saw R. (S. A.) and M. (V. S.) oppose each other regarding the legitimacy of fixed-term contracts. The Court of Appeal of Trieste, with its decision of December 6, 2018, had already established that the repetition of contracts beyond the limit set by the regulations should be considered abusive, regardless of whether the hires occurred through distinct public competitions.

The Maxim of the Ruling

In general. In contractual public employment, in the event of a succession of fixed-term contracts, the limit of thirty-six months of total duration applies, after which the repetition is to be considered abusive, regardless of the fact that the fixed-term hiring occurred, from time to time, at the outcome of distinct public competitions.

This maxim clearly highlights the legislator's intent to limit the use of fixed-term contracts, to prevent them from becoming the norm rather than the exception. The reference regulation is Legislative Decree No. 368 of 2001, which in Article 5 paragraph 4 establishes the limit of thirty-six months. This provision serves as both a deterrent for public administrations and a safeguard for workers, preventing situations of prolonged precariousness.

Legal and Regulatory Implications

The implications of this ruling are manifold and concern both public administrations and workers. Among the main consequences, the following can be highlighted:

  • Strengthening job stability in the public sector.
  • Limiting excessive flexibility by administrations in personnel management.
  • Regulatory clarity for workers, who can see their rights protected in the case of fixed-term contracts.

In a European context, compliance with such limits aligns with community directives aimed at ensuring fair working conditions and the protection of workers' rights. Judgment No. 10571 of 2024 thus fits into a broader framework of labor protection, not only at the national level but also at the European level.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 10571 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the regulation of fixed-term contracts in public employment. It confirms the necessity of adhering to the thirty-six-month limit, promoting greater stability for workers and more responsible management by administrations. It is essential that legal scholars and professionals in the legal sector continue to monitor the evolution of such regulations to ensure correct application and protection of workers' rights in the public context.

Bianucci Law Firm