Abuse of fixed-term contracts for religious education teachers: the Court of Cassation clarifies with judgment no. 30779 of 2025

The issue of precarious employment in the Italian school system has for years represented a legal battleground of enormous significance. In particular, the position of Catholic religious education teachers has often remained suspended in a regulatory limbo, characterized by the systematic reiteration of fixed-term contracts. With judgment no. 30779 of November 23, 2025, the Court of Cassation intervened decisively on this matter, establishing a fundamental principle: extraordinary competitive procedures that include selective tests cannot be considered a remedy for the unlawful conduct committed by the school administration.

The regulatory context and the Cassation's decision

The case arises from the appeal filed by the State Attorney General's Office against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Perugia, which had ruled in favor of teacher M. R. (referred to as B. in the case documents). At the center of the debate is the application of Law no. 186 of 2003 and the subsequent amendments introduced by Decree-Law no. 126 of 2019. The State argued that the announcement of an extraordinary recruitment procedure was sufficient to compensate for and remedy the abuse of fixed-term contracts. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, confirming that the abuse is not erased if access to permanent employment is not automatic.

The headnote of judgment no. 30779 of 2025

To fully understand the scope of this ruling, it is essential to analyze the official headnote expressed by the judges of legitimacy:

In the matter of public employment, the extraordinary and reserved recruitment procedure referred to in art. 1-bis, paragraph 2, of d.l. no. 126 of 2019 (converted with amendments by Law no. 159 of 2019, and amended by art. 47, para. 9, of d.l. no. 36 of 2022, converted with amendments by Law no. 79 of 2022, and subsequently by art. 20, para. 6, of d.l. no. 75 of 2023, converted with amendments by Law no. 112 of 2023), implemented with Ministerial Decree no. 9 of 2024, does not constitute a suitable measure to remedy the unlawful conduct resulting from the abusive reiteration of fixed-term substitute contracts for Catholic religious education teachers, concluded according to the rules of Law no. 186 of 2003, as it is not characterized by automaticity but consists of a selective verification, to be carried out, in addition to the evaluation of qualifications, through an oral examination of a didactic-methodological nature, also with reference to the use of technologies and knowledge of the English language; conversely, a compensatory scope must be recognized for procedures characterized by forms of mild selection, understood as those which, while maintaining the automaticity of recruitment, provide for mere priority rules among candidates, based on timing - which must in any case be limited to a contained period - necessary for the assignment of the position.

As can be seen from the text of the headnote, the Court of Cassation makes a clear distinction between selective procedures and compensatory procedures. If the State imposes a complex oral examination, focused on didactic methodologies, information technology, and the English language, it is not offering an automatic remedy to the precarious worker, but is introducing a selective filter that could exclude them, thereby nullifying the protection against the abuse of precarious employment.

Requirements for a genuine compensatory measure

The judgment clarifies the characteristics a procedure must have in order to be considered a real remedy for the breach of EU and national law:

• Automaticity of recruitment: the transition to a permanent contract must be guaranteed for those who have suffered the abuse.
• Mild selection: only priority rules or chronological rankings are permitted to manage the assignment of positions.
• Exclusion of complex selective filters: examination tests on subjects not strictly related to the verification of already acquired suitability are incompatible with a compensatory function.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 30779 of 2025 represents a milestone for the protection of religious education teachers and, more generally, for all precarious workers in the public administration. It reaffirms the principle that the State cannot circumvent its responsibilities arising from the abuse of fixed-term contracts by masking as a remedy a competition that, in effect, forces the worker to overcome further and complex selective obstacles. For the teachers concerned, the path is now open to claim damages before the trial courts.