Introduction
On 8 October 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) delivered its judgment in Case C-706/23, Şcoala gimnazială «Mihai Eminescu» Vaslui v Uniunea Sindicală «Didactica» Vaslui au nom et pour ses membres and Others (ECLI:EU:C:2026:832). The case arose from a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Curtea de Apel Iaşi, a Romanian appellate court, and concerns the treatment of teaching staff who are employed simultaneously under two separate contracts with the same school: a full-time employment contract of indefinite duration and a part-time fixed-term employment contract.
The central legal questions referred to the Court touch on some of the most fundamental instruments of EU social policy: Directive 2003/88/EC on the organisation of working time, Article 7(1) of which guarantees the right to paid annual leave; Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which enshrines the right to paid annual leave as a fundamental right; Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC; and Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP. Both framework agreements contain a principle of non-discrimination and, in the case of part-time work, the principle of pro rata temporis.
The dispute centres on two specific employment benefits: first, the remuneration payable in respect of paid annual leave, which the school calculated solely on the basis of the full-time contract of indefinite duration, disregarding the part-time fixed-term contract; and second, a meal allowance granted solely in relation to the actual working time completed under the full-time contract of indefinite duration, again excluding the hours worked under the part-time fixed-term contract. This article examines the legal framework invoked by the referring court and the significance of the judgment for workers and employers across the European Union.
Background and factual context
The case originates in Romania, where the trade union Uniunea Sindicală «Didactica» Vaslui brought proceedings on behalf of its members against the school Şcoala gimnazială «Mihai Eminescu» Vaslui. The members concerned were teaching staff who held two concurrent employment relationships with the same employer: one contract was a full-time contract of indefinite duration, and the other was a part-time fixed-term contract.
The school's practice was to calculate the remuneration payable during paid annual leave exclusively by reference to the full-time contract of indefinite duration. The earnings and working time attributable to the part-time fixed-term contract were not taken into account when determining the holiday pay owed to the affected teachers. Similarly, the meal allowance provided to staff was calculated solely on the basis of the actual working time performed under the full-time contract of indefinite duration, with no account taken of the hours worked under the part-time fixed-term contract.
The Curtea de Apel Iaşi, uncertain as to the compatibility of this practice with EU law, stayed the proceedings and referred questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The referral engaged multiple strands of EU social policy law simultaneously, reflecting the dual nature of the employment arrangements at issue: the part-time dimension engaged the Framework Agreement on part-time work and its non-discrimination and pro rata temporis principles, while the fixed-term dimension engaged the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work and its own non-discrimination clause.
The EU legal framework at issue
Directive 2003/88/EC, the Working Time Directive, establishes minimum standards for the organisation of working time across the European Union. Article 7(1) of that Directive requires member states to ensure that every worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks. The Court of Justice has consistently interpreted this provision, together with Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as conferring on workers a right to receive, during their annual leave, remuneration that is comparable to that received during periods of active work, so that the worker is not deterred from taking leave.
The Framework Agreement on part-time work, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC, contains in Clause 4.1 a principle of non-discrimination: part-time workers shall not be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable full-time workers solely because they work part time, unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds. Clause 4.2 of the same agreement provides that, where appropriate, the principle of pro rata temporis shall apply, meaning that benefits may be granted to part-time workers in proportion to their working time compared to that of a comparable full-time worker.
The Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC, contains an analogous non-discrimination principle in Clause 4.1: fixed-term workers shall not be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent workers solely because they have a fixed-term contract or relation, unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds. These two framework agreements together create a layered system of protection for workers whose employment arrangements deviate from the standard model of full-time, indefinite-duration employment.
The particular complexity of Case C-706/23 lies in the fact that the affected workers are not simply part-time workers or simply fixed-term workers: they hold both types of non-standard contract simultaneously, alongside a standard full-time indefinite-duration contract. The referring court therefore needed guidance on how the non-discrimination principles in both framework agreements interact when a worker accumulates separate contracts of employment with the same employer.
The questions referred and their significance
The Curtea de Apel Iaşi referred questions concerning the compatibility with EU law of a national practice under which, first, the remuneration payable in respect of paid annual leave is calculated solely on the basis of the full-time employment contract of indefinite duration, and second, the meal allowance is granted solely in relation to the actual working time completed in performing the full-time employment contract of indefinite duration.
The significance of these questions extends beyond the specific facts of the Romanian education sector. The scenario of a worker holding multiple concurrent contracts with the same employer is not uncommon in various member states, particularly in sectors such as education, healthcare, and public administration, where staffing needs may be met through a combination of permanent and temporary or supplementary contractual arrangements.
The judgment addresses whether the non-discrimination principles in Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work and Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC and Article 31(2) of the Charter, preclude a practice of calculating holiday pay and ancillary benefits by reference only to one of the worker's concurrent contracts, thereby disregarding the remuneration and working time attributable to the other contract.
The pro rata temporis principle is also directly relevant: if a worker's total remuneration during active work reflects earnings from both contracts, then calculating holiday pay solely on the basis of one contract would result in the worker receiving, during annual leave, a sum that does not correspond to their normal remuneration, potentially discouraging the exercise of the right to leave guaranteed by Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC.
Key legal principles applied by the Court
The judgment engages the principle of non-discrimination as enshrined in both framework agreements. Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work prohibits less favourable treatment of part-time workers compared to comparable full-time workers solely on the ground of their part-time status, absent objective justification. Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work similarly prohibits less favourable treatment of fixed-term workers compared to comparable permanent workers solely on the ground of the fixed-term nature of their contract, absent objective justification.
In the context of accumulated contracts, the Court's analysis must address the question of the appropriate comparator. The affected teachers are, in respect of their part-time fixed-term contract, both part-time workers and fixed-term workers simultaneously. The non-discrimination principles of both framework agreements are therefore potentially applicable in parallel, and the Court's judgment provides guidance on how these overlapping protections operate.
The right to paid annual leave under Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC and Article 31(2) of the Charter is a fundamental right of particular importance in EU law. The Court has established in its case law that the purpose of the entitlement to paid annual leave is to enable the worker to rest and to enjoy a period of relaxation and leisure. The remuneration paid during annual leave must be calculated so as to put the worker, during that leave, in a position which is, as regards salary, comparable to periods of work. A calculation method that excludes part of the worker's normal remuneration from the holiday pay computation would undermine this objective.
The pro rata temporis principle, applicable under Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work, provides a mechanism for proportionate treatment rather than exclusion. Under this principle, a part-time worker's entitlement to a benefit may be calculated in proportion to their working time, but the benefit may not be entirely withheld on the ground that it arises from a part-time contract. Applied to the facts of Case C-706/23, this principle supports the inclusion of the part-time fixed-term contract's contribution to the worker's overall remuneration when calculating holiday pay, at least on a proportionate basis.
Implications for employers and workers
The judgment in Case C-706/23 has practical implications for employers in member states who engage workers under multiple concurrent contracts. Where a worker holds both a full-time indefinite-duration contract and a part-time fixed-term contract with the same employer, the employer cannot, consistently with EU law as interpreted by the Court, calculate holiday pay solely by reference to the full-time contract while disregarding the remuneration attributable to the part-time fixed-term contract.
Similarly, the exclusion of working time performed under the part-time fixed-term contract from the calculation of a meal allowance — where that allowance is linked to actual working time — raises questions of compatibility with the non-discrimination principles in both framework agreements. If comparable full-time permanent workers receive the meal allowance in respect of all their working time, then excluding from the calculation the working time performed under the part-time fixed-term contract may constitute less favourable treatment on grounds of part-time or fixed-term status.
For workers in analogous situations, the judgment reinforces the importance of the EU framework of social rights and the role of trade unions and works councils in ensuring that employment benefits are calculated in a manner consistent with EU law. The case was brought by the trade union Uniunea Sindicală «Didactica» Vaslui on behalf of its members, illustrating the practical role of collective representation in enforcing individual employment rights.
National courts and tribunals across the European Union are bound to interpret national law in conformity with EU law as interpreted by the Court of Justice. Where national legislation or collective agreements produce outcomes that are incompatible with the non-discrimination principles in the framework agreements or with the right to paid annual leave under Directive 2003/88/EC, national courts must set aside the incompatible national rules or interpret them in a manner consistent with EU law.
The role of the preliminary ruling procedure
Case C-706/23 reached the Court of Justice through the preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This procedure allows national courts and tribunals to refer questions of EU law to the Court of Justice when the answer is necessary to enable them to give judgment. The Curtea de Apel Iaşi, as an appellate court, made use of this mechanism to obtain authoritative guidance on the interpretation of Directive 2003/88/EC, the two framework agreements, and the Charter.
The preliminary ruling procedure is a cornerstone of the EU legal order, ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of EU law across all member states. The judgment delivered by the Court of Justice in response to the referral is binding on the Curtea de Apel Iaşi in the main proceedings and provides guidance to all national courts and tribunals faced with similar questions.
The fact that the referral came from a Romanian court concerning Romanian teaching staff illustrates the broad geographic and sectoral reach of EU social policy law. The protections afforded by Directive 2003/88/EC and the two framework agreements apply throughout the European Union, and the preliminary ruling procedure ensures that workers in all member states benefit from a consistent standard of protection.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) of 8 October 2026 in Case C-706/23 addresses an important and practically significant question in EU employment law: how the non-discrimination principles in the Framework Agreement on part-time work and the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, together with the right to paid annual leave under Directive 2003/88/EC and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, apply to workers who simultaneously hold a full-time contract of indefinite duration and a part-time fixed-term contract with the same employer.
The case highlights the potential for workers in non-standard employment arrangements to be disadvantaged when employment benefits such as holiday pay and meal allowances are calculated solely by reference to one of their concurrent contracts. The EU legal framework, as interpreted by the Court, provides a basis for challenging such practices where they result in less favourable treatment of part-time or fixed-term workers without objective justification.
Employers, workers, trade unions, and national courts should be attentive to the principles established in this judgment when assessing the lawfulness of practices relating to the calculation of remuneration during paid annual leave and the grant of ancillary benefits in situations involving the accumulation of separate employment contracts. The judgment underscores the fundamental character of the right to paid annual leave in EU law and the importance of ensuring that the calculation of holiday pay genuinely reflects the worker's normal remuneration.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications