The recent Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the situation of temporary workers In the Spanish public sector, the ruling has reignited the debate about whether these workers should be given permanent positions as a response to the overuse of temporary contracts. The decision, eagerly awaited by hundreds of thousands of public employees, does not explicitly compel Spain to grant automatic permanent status, but it strongly calls into question the mechanisms the country has used until now.
In essence, the Luxembourg-based court concludes that Spanish legislation does not offer “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” measures This comes in response to the abusive use of successive temporary contracts in public administrations. This leaves both the concept of permanent non-tenured employment and fixed-term compensation and stabilization processes in limbo, placing the Supreme Court and the Government in a very delicate legal and political situation.
What exactly has the CJEU said about temporary workers?
The case that has given rise to the CJEU's ruling stems from the situation of a worker who had six consecutive temporary contracts as a childcare worker in a public educational center in the Community of Madrid since 2016. The Spanish courts ended up recognizing her status as an indefinite non-permanent employee and a limited compensation upon termination of the employment relationship, which led the Supreme Court to raise a preliminary question to Luxembourg.
The Supreme Court wanted to know if, in light of the European Directive on fixed-term work, It was enough to compensate the worker or declare him a permanent non-fixed worker. to compensate for the abuse, or if, on the contrary, the Spanish legal system should go further and consider other solutions, including the possible conversion to a fixed-term contract.
The CJEU responds that the European framework agreement does not impose a general obligation to transform all temporary public sector contracts into permanent contracts. However, it adds a key condition: if the State prohibits automatic conversion to fixed-lineInstead, it should offer another effective measure that truly prevents and punishes the abuse of temporary employment.
According to the ruling, The formulas chosen by Spain do not meet this standardHence, the ruling insists that it is not for the European court to interpret domestic law, but it does set the criteria that Spanish judicial bodies must use when reviewing each case of abuse.
Why the figure of the non-fixed indefinite is called into question
One of the harshest points of the European statement is directed against the figure of the indefinite non-permanent workerThis category, created by Spanish jurisprudence as an intermediate formula between traditional temporary staff and permanent employees, allows the employee to continue working until the position is filled through a permanent appointment. selective process Ordinary.
For the CJEU, this solution “does not constitute an adequate measure” to sanction abusive use of successive temporary contracts. The reason is that, in practice, it maintains a temporary employment relationship and a precarious situation, since the termination occurs as soon as the Administration announces and fills the position, without guaranteeing true stability to the affected person.
The court notes that job stability is a essential element of worker protectionIf the response to the abuse is limited to prolonging an uncertain situation, the remedy ceases to be a deterrent and, moreover, does not adequately compensate for the years of undue temporary employment.
In line with the previous conclusions of Advocate General Rimvydas Norkus, the judgment underlines that not recognizing the status of permanent staff For those who are already on permanent but non-tenured contracts, this may be compatible with EU law only if the Spanish legal system provides for another effective alternative sanction. The problem, in Luxembourg's view, is that currently no such alternative exists.
Fixed compensation and stabilization processes: why they are not enough
The CJEU also analyzes the compensation provided for in Spanish labor law, generally 20 or 30 days per year worked, with maximum limits of one or two years' salary, as well as compensation for unfair dismissal. It concludes that these amounts, as currently structured, do not guarantee adequate redress in cases of the most serious abuse.
Among other things, Luxembourg points out that Not all temporary workers are entitled to this compensation.Those who eventually retire, resign, are dismissed before securing a permanent position, or finally obtain a permanent post may not receive compensation for years of abusive temporary employment. Furthermore, the assessed amount does not always reflect the actual damages suffered, such as lost career opportunities or prolonged job insecurity.
In parallel, the European ruling criticizes the stabilization processes and those with scales that assess prior experienceAlthough he acknowledges that considering years of service is a positive element, he believes that these procedures do not have a specific reparative character for the victims of abuse, because the seniority advantage is open to all types of temporary workers and not only to those who have fraudulently chained together contracts.
Thus, the CJEU concludes that neither compensation, nor indefinite non-permanent contracts, nor current merit-based competitions or selection processes “They seem to adequately penalize the abusive use” nor does it eliminate the consequences of non-compliance with EU law. It therefore leaves Spain without clear instruments that would pass European scrutiny.
The clash between Luxembourg and the Spanish constitutional framework
The heart of the conflict lies in the tension between the European requirement for stability This is relevant for those who have suffered abuses and for the constitutional model of access to public employment in Spain, based on the principles of equality, merit, and ability. The Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court have repeatedly stated that permanent employment cannot be granted automatically without passing a selection process open to all citizens.
Therefore, the Supreme Court referred to the CJEU the question of whether the Community framework agreement obliged to classify the employment relationship as permanent The question arose regarding a worker who had accumulated temporary contracts for more than three years, or whether it would suffice to declare her a permanent non-tenured employee with the right to compensation. The CJEU responded that the directive does not require, in the abstract, converting all temporary workers into permanent ones, but clarified that, when this solution is not offered, there must be another truly effective mechanism to prevent and punish abuse.
The European court has been establishing this line in several rulings, including two 2024 decisions that already warned that The Spanish administration should do more to correct the temporary nature of the situation.In those rulings, Luxembourg already pointed out that job stability is a "key component" of worker protection, including in the public sector.
The new ruling is presented as a definitive clarification of that doctrineHowever, it leaves the final interpretation of domestic law to the Spanish courts. It will be up to the Supreme Court to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not there are proportionate, effective, and dissuasive measures in place to prevent abuses. If it concludes that there are not, converting the contract to a fixed-term contract emerges as the most direct way to restore compliance with European law.
Possible options: job security, enhanced compensation, and intermediate measures
Although the CJEU avoids imposing a single mandatory remedy, most analyses agree that the The ruling drastically reduces the interpretive options available for Spain. Several options are being considered, all with significant legal, economic, and political implications.
One possibility is to generalize the conversion to fixed-rate accounts This applies to temporary workers who have been abusively subjected to successive contracts. This is the solution advocated by platforms like FijezaYa and legal experts like lawyer Javier Arauz, who interpret the ruling as a "funnel" that, in practice, pushes those who have suffered abuse toward automatic job security. There are even proposals to implement a "permanent contract to be phased out" system, which would consolidate the position until retirement, resignation, or voluntary termination, without creating new vacancies in the future.
Another theoretical approach would be significantly increase compensationThis would involve abandoning current limits and taking into account factors such as total time spent in abusive employment, economic harm, and lost opportunities. However, this alternative could entail a very high budgetary cost for public coffers, and even then, it would still be debatable whether it truly guarantees the same protection as permanent employment.
The option of thoroughly review the stabilization processesby truly restricting them to the victims of abusive temporary employment and providing them with specific guarantees. The problem is that the CJEU itself has already questioned whether open competitive examinations for any candidate can be considered a redress mechanism aimed at the affected group.
In any case, the ruling makes it clear that maintaining the current scheme - indefinite non-permanent, fixed compensation and generic merit-based competitions - It does not fit with EU lawIf permanent status is not chosen, it will be necessary to design an alternative system of sanctions and compensation that is much more forceful than the current one.
The Government's position: rejection of a mass conversion
In contrast to those who see the ruling as a decisive step towards widespread job security, the central government has sought to temper expectations. The Ministry for Digital Transformation and Public Administration maintains that the Luxembourg ruling It is “merely explanatory” and does not oblige Spain to make permanent positions. temporary contracts in the public sector.
Sources within the department emphasize that the CJEU is not sanctioning the country nor directly annulling national legislation. Furthermore, they reiterate the doctrine of the Constitutional Court She remains opposed to automatically stabilizing. to temporary workers who have not passed a competitive examination open to everyone. From this perspective, the European ruling is interpreted as a wake-up call to "do more" against the abuse, but not as an order to launch a mass conversion process.
The Executive reiterates its commitment to reducing temporary employment In the public administration, this promise is also a condition of the commitments made to Brussels in exchange for European funds. Spain had pledged to reduce the rate of temporary public sector employment to below 8%, but according to the latest data, temporary employment still hovers around 30%, with a particularly high incidence in healthcare, education, and regional and local governments.
In this context, the government insists that the key will be how the Supreme Court interprets the CJEU ruling. Meanwhile, official sources categorically rule out the idea of a major [unclear - possibly "immediate" or "major"] immediate regularization of the approximately 800.000 temporary workers who, according to union estimates, could be affected by a broad decision to convert to permanent positions.
Impact on temporary workers and the courts
The European resolution has immediate practical consequences for hundreds of thousands of public employees who have been on a string of temporary contracts for years. Many of them have open legal cases or were waiting for Luxembourg's decision to decide whether to sue the Administration.
Temporary worker platforms see the ruling as a a historic opportunity to stabilize their employment situationThey argue that they have already overcome this situation and that the refusal to grant them permanent status perpetuates an unjustified precariousness. For these groups, the ruling confirms that none of the measures attempted so far in Spain meet European standards, and that the only coherent solution is to grant permanent status to those who have suffered abuse in their hiring practices.
For their part, unions like CSIF are demanding that this scenario be used to toughen sanctions against administrations that they continue to abuse temporary contracts. Among their proposals are exemplary punishments for those responsible for these practices, the obligation to open all permanent positions to public competition, and the elimination of obstacles such as the replacement rate, with the aim of reducing dependence on temporary staff.
On the legal front, the CJEU ruling is expected to trigger a notable increase in litigationThis applies both to people who have already initiated legal action and to those awaiting a clear ruling from Europe. The Supreme Court will now have to resolve not only the specific case that gave rise to the preliminary question, but also establish a stable doctrine for the rest of the Spanish courts, which had been issuing disparate rulings on job security.
All of this adds to the pressure from the European Commission, which maintains part of the recovery funds blocked Precisely because of the lack of effective measures against the abusive use of temporary contracts in the public sector, the room for maneuver is narrowing, and the decisions that the Supreme Court and the Government adopt in the coming months will be decisive for the future of hundreds of thousands of workers and for compliance with commitments to the European Union.
With this ruling, the CJEU makes it clear that the Spanish model for managing temporary employment in the public sector needs profound changes: the current solutions neither deter abuse nor repair the damage suffered by temporary workers, so the country is forced to choose between moving towards converting those who have endured years of successive contracts into permanent positions or designing a new, much more forceful system of sanctions and compensation, capable of finally guaranteeing the job stability required by EU law.
