Fixed-term contracts for public sector executives: limits on renewals in Judgment no. 27189/2025

The employment relationship of fixed-term public sector executives has always been at the center of a delicate balance between the organizational needs of the Public Administration and the protection of workers. With the landmark judgment no. 27189 of October 10, 2025, the Labor Section of the Court of Cassation clarified the boundaries of the special regulations governing these contracts, placing an insurmountable barrier on the abuse of fixed-term contracts in public employment and outlining the compensatory consequences for the workers involved.

The special nature of the regulations and the contrast with the abuse of fixed-term contracts

The ruling of the Supreme Court, involving G. R. and P. M., focuses on the application of Article 19, paragraph 6, of Legislative Decree no. 165 of 2001. This provision regulates the assignment of executive positions to external candidates or internal officials without a competitive examination for a limited period of time. The judges of legitimacy reiterated that this regulation is "special" in nature and cannot be assimilated into the general rules of private labor law regarding fixed-term contracts.

However, this special nature does not mean that the Public Administration has carte blanche. On the contrary, the Court emphasizes the need to interpret the provision in light of European Union and constitutional principles:

• Directive 1999/70/EC: in particular, clause 5 of the Framework Agreement, aimed at preventing and sanctioning the abusive use of successive fixed-term contracts.
• Article 97 of the Constitution: which imposes the principle of public competitive examination for access to employment in public administrations, including for fixed-term relationships.

Temporal limits and the prohibition of surreptitious renewal

The core of the decision lies in the prohibition of circumventing the temporal limits provided by law (three and five years) through contract renewal, even if an attempt is made to formally change the subject matter of the assignment. If the duties fall within the ordinary activity of the public entity, the reiteration beyond the legal limits constitutes a clear abuse.

The Court of Cassation expressed this fundamental principle of law in the following headnote:

In the context of privatized public employment, the regulation under Art. 19, paragraph 6, of Legislative Decree no. 165 of 2001, concerning fixed-term executive employment relationships with Ministries and national non-economic public entities, is special and incompatible with the general regulation on fixed-term contracts and must, in any case, be interpreted in light of, on the one hand, clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC on fixed-term work (in compliance with the clarifications provided by the CJEU on the subject of suppressing abuses) and, on the other hand, the constitutional principle of access to employment, even temporary, only following a public competitive examination; it follows that the power to renew contracts can no longer be exercised, once the three-year and five-year duration limits established by the provision have been exceeded, not even through the assignment of a different position, if the latter still pertains to the normal activity of the entity, with the worker being entitled, in the event of unlawful reiteration of fixed-term relationships, to so-called EU-law damages.

As clearly stated in the headnote, exceeding the temporal limits does not allow the Public Administration to rehire the same executive by assigning them different tasks, if these fall within the "normal activity of the entity." Such behavior constitutes an unlawful reiteration of fixed-term relationships.

Compensation for EU-law damages

What are the practical consequences for the public executive who has suffered this abuse? In privatized public employment, the violation of rules on fixed-term contracts can never lead to the conversion of the employment relationship into an open-ended one, due to the aforementioned constitutional barrier of the public competitive examination (Art. 97 of the Constitution). Consequently, the only effective remedy for the worker is of an economic nature.

In these cases, the Court of Cassation recognizes the right to so-called compensation for EU-law damages. This is an economic remedy aimed at sanctioning the defaulting administration and compensating the worker for the loss of opportunity and the unlawful precariousness to which they were subjected, in line with what has been established by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 27189/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents an important milestone in the protection of contract-based public executives. It reaffirms that the Public Administration's need for flexibility cannot translate into an indefinite precariousness of employment relationships. Public entities are required to carefully plan their personnel needs, knowing that the abuse of the fixed-term contract instrument, even in the form of sham changes in duties, exposes the administration to heavy compensatory damages in favor of the workers.