ECJ: dual-contract teachers owed leave pay on both contracts

On 8 October 2026 the Court of Justice (First Chamber) gave judgment in Case C-706/23Europa, a Romanian reference from the Curtea de Apel Iaşi in a dispute between Şcoala gimnazială “Mihai Eminescu” Vaslui and the Vaslui Teachers' Trade Union acting for 14 staff members (KM and Others). Between 2019 and 2022 the employees held full-time teaching contracts of indefinite durationEuropa alongside part-time fixed-term contracts paid by the hourEuropa, taken from September to June each school year to cover vacated posts. Leave pay and the meal allowance were calculated solely on the full-time “basic post” contractEuropa, ignoring the hourly-contract earnings; the staff received between 27 and 62 days of leave in the period.

On leave pay, the Court holds that Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter, precludes ignoring the second contractEuropa. Paid annual leave has two aspects — the rest itself and the payment — and workers must receive their normal remuneration during leave, calculated by reference to periods of actual work, so that leave is economically comparable to working time. The amount for at least the four-week minimum must not fall below average normal remuneration during actual work; a longer national entitlement cannot compensate for underpayment of the minimum period, and lower leave pay discourages taking leave. The fact that hourly teaching supplements an indefinite-duration contract does not change the Article 7 analysisEuropa.

The same result follows under Clause 4.1 of both the part-time framework (Directive 97/81) and the fixed-term framework (Directive 1999/70)EuropaEuropa: leave pay is an “employment condition” covering remuneration components, and simultaneous accumulation of two contracts is not excluded from either framework — excluding it would unduly narrow anti-discrimination protection. The hourly-contract staff fall within both frameworks' personal scope, perform duties identical to vacated-post holders so are comparable to full-time permanent staff, and suffer less favourable treatment where the second contract's income is excluded. The continuity-of-teaching justification fails: ignoring the second contract's hours and pay is unrelated to that objective, and a general statutory rule is not an objective ground without precise, concrete, necessary factors.

On the meal allowance under Article 18 of Framework Law No 153/2017 — one-twelfth of two minimum basic salaries monthly, pro rata to the previous month's actual working time up to 30% of basic salaries — the Court holds it is salary income and hence an employment conditionEuropa, so granting it only on basic-contract hours and excluding it from leave pay also breaches Clause 4.1 of both frameworks and Article 7(1)EuropaEuropa. The balanced-diet rationale fails because the allowance is paid as salary regardless of meal costs, and capping via the basic contract misapplies pro rata temporis.

Legal basis: Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC, Article 31(2) of the Charter, Clause 4.1 of the part-time framework (Directive 97/81/EC) and Clause 4.1 of the fixed-term framework (Directive 1999/70/EC).