Territorial Jurisdiction and the Teacher's Card: Cassation Ordinance No. 16005/2025 Clarifies Doubts

The right of fixed-term teachers to the "teacher's card" has been the subject of extensive litigation. Initially reserved for permanent teachers, jurisprudence has recognized the illegitimacy of the disparity, but complex procedural issues have often arisen, particularly regarding territorial jurisdiction. The Ordinance of the Court of Cassation No. 16005 of June 15, 2025 (Rv. 675598-01) intervenes with a fundamental ruling, offering clarity and uniformity.

The Issue of Territorial Jurisdiction in Public Employment Disputes

Disputes in public employment, especially for teachers with fixed-term contracts in different locations, raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction. The Cassation Court, with President D. P. A. and rapporteur F. I., examined this question in the judgment between N. T. A. and M., concerning the right to the teacher's card for temporary staff. The general principle (Articles 45 and 413 of the Code of Civil Procedure) establishes jurisdiction where the worker actually performs their service. However, for fixed-term teachers, with short contracts and variable locations, this principle was not straightforward, potentially fragmenting disputes or triggering the residual criterion under Article 413, paragraph 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Ruling of Ordinance No. 16005/2025 and Its Significance

In matters of public employment disputes, the principle that, in cases of temporary assignment of an employee to another office belonging to the same Public Administration, territorial jurisdiction is determined with regard to the place where the worker actually performs their service at the time of filing the appeal, also applies to judgments concerning the right of a fixed-term teacher to benefit from the so-called teacher's card under the same conditions as permanent teachers. This is because, even though a series of fixed-term contracts with institutions located in different territorial areas are involved – which could abstractly establish the jurisdiction of different judges or trigger the residual criterion under Article 413, paragraph 7, of the Code of Civil Procedure – the subject matter of the dispute justifies the unified consideration of these contracts to emphasize the continuity between those that have ended and the one in effect at the time of filing the application, in order to substantiate the premise of current inclusion in the school system, necessary for the acceptance of the request for specific performance.

The ruling is the core of the decision, offering a practical and protective solution. The Cassation Court establishes that, even with numerous temporary contracts in different locations, the competent court for the teacher's card case is the one in the place where the teacher is actually serving at the time of the appeal. Past locations are irrelevant. The crucial element is the "continuity" of inclusion in the school system, which justifies a unified view of fixed-term contracts, preventing administrative fragmentation from complicating the process to the detriment of the worker. This approach facilitates the exercise of the right and prevents unnecessary jurisdictional complexities, focusing on the current employment relationship.

Practical Implications and Teacher Protection

Ordinance No. 16005/2025 has concrete repercussions for thousands of temporary teachers. Key points:

• **Simplification:** It reduces uncertainty regarding the choice of the competent court, avoiding jurisdictional disputes that would slow down the process.
• **Worker Protection:** The teacher can bring their case before the judge closest to their current place of service, facilitating access to justice.
• **Recognition of Continuity:** The Cassation Court values the continuity of service rendered, even through fixed-term contracts, recognizing the teacher's ongoing presence in the school system. This is fundamental to supporting the request for specific performance.
• **Jurisprudential Consistency:** The decision aligns with a consolidated trend (referencing precedents such as Rv. 652609-01 and Rv. 669340-03) aimed at protecting the rights of temporary teachers, equating them with permanent teachers for the teacher's card, in line with the principles of non-discrimination enshrined in European law.

Law 107/2015, Article 1, paragraph 121, established the teacher's card. Although initially for permanent teachers only, jurisprudence has extended this right to temporary staff to avoid unjustified disparities. The Ordinance consolidates this protection.

Conclusions: A Step Forward for Justice in Public Employment

The Cassation Court's Ordinance No. 16005/2025 is an important step in protecting the rights of temporary teachers. By clarifying territorial jurisdiction, the Supreme Court simplifies access to justice and ensures the effectiveness of the right to the teacher's card. This ruling reiterates the judiciary's focus on the substance of the employment relationship and employee protection, overcoming formal rigidities. For temporary teachers, it means a clearer path to assert their rights, with justice administered in the place of their current professional commitment.