The Supreme Court has taken a decisive step in regulating the temporary employment in the public sector following the recent CJEU ruling The ruling of April 14, known as the Obadal case, marks a turning point for thousands of temporary workers who have spent years on a series of temporary contracts in public administrations throughout Spain.
The key to change lies on two fronts: on the one hand, the recognition of specific compensations of between 1.000 and 10.000 euros For those who have suffered from the abusive use of temporary contracts; on the other hand, the possibility of achieving permanent employment in very specific cases, always linked to having previously passed a competitive examination without obtaining a position.
What has the Supreme Court decided regarding temporary workers?
However, the judgment of May 11, 2026 introduces an exception of enormous relevanceWhen a public employee has already passed a selection process for a permanent position and the administration has nevertheless continued to use temporary contracts for years, it is considered that there has been fraudulent use of temporary employment. In that scenario, the remedy may well be permanent employment.
This doctrine is directly linked to the requirements of the CJEU, which in its April ruling demanded that Spain take measures effective, dissuasive and proportionate to combat and remedy the abuse of fixed-term contracts in the public sector. The Supreme Court adopts this European mandate and specifies it both in the area of job security and in the area of financial compensation.
Furthermore, the Court states that appropriate measures must combine compensation to the worker and penalty to the administrationIt is not enough to recognize the rights of the affected party; there must also be administrative reprimand of the body that has maintained the irregular situation, through sanctioning proceedings initiated by the Labor and Social Security Inspectorate.
Compensation of up to 10.000 euros for the abuse of temporary contracts
One of the most striking new features is the introduction of a specific compensatory damages This compensation is for those who can prove they have suffered from the abuse of temporary employment and are unable to obtain permanent positions. It is in addition to any amounts they may already be entitled to upon termination of their contract or dismissal.
The Supreme Court sets a guideline range of between 1.000 and 10.000 eurosThis amount is calculated based on the scale of penalties established by the Law on Infringements and Sanctions in the Social Order (LISOS) for serious infringements related to temporary contracts. The court itself refers to this as a “minimum presumptive compensation.”
This range is not determined based on the worker's salary, but rather takes into account factors such as the functions performed, the number and duration of the contracts, the economic advantages that were lost due to the lack of stability and the harm resulting from living permanently in uncertainty, as the CJEU had pointed out.
In practice, the scheme is twofold: the temporary worker whose contract ends will receive, on the one hand, the ordinary compensation for termination or dismissal that is applicable in each case, and, on the other hand, this additional compensatory damages intended to mitigate professional and moral harm. However, to access these additional compensations, it will be necessary to go to court and litigate.
The Supreme Court itself clarifies that the range between €1.000 and €10.000 acts as a floor, not a fixed ceiling. When the worker can demonstrate higher and more specific damages —for example, loss of professional opportunities, prolonged impact on their income or significant effects on their career—, the compensation may far exceed the 10.000 euros set as a minimum reference.
Practical example: from chained contracts to job security
The new doctrine has already been applied to real cases that illustrate how it can change the situation of many temporary workers. One of them is known as Obadal case, which has served as a framework for setting general criteria on compensation and reparation measures following the CJEU ruling.
In that ruling, the Supreme Court emphasizes that those who have passed a competitive examination for a permanent position, but did not obtain it due to a lack of sufficient vacancies, are in a very particular situation. If, after demonstrating merit and ability, they have continued to be hired on a temporary basis for years, this continued temporary employment is considered an abuse of power. fraudulent system.
A prime example is that of a worker at an educational center in the Community of Madrid, hired as temporary staff since 2016, who accumulated more than nine years of an employment relationship without stability. In 2023 she was recognized as an indefinite non-permanent worker, a status that grants some continuity but without ownership of the position.
This employee passed a competitive examination in 2025, although she did not obtain a permanent position due to the cut-off score. After analyzing her case, the Supreme Court understands that, having already passed the selection process and given the subsequent abuse of temporary employment, the appropriate solution is declare the permanent employment relationshipThat is, direct conversion to permanent staff, without the need for further testing.
In that specific case, however, no additional financial compensation was awarded, as the employee had only requested a declaration of permanent employment. The Supreme Court considers that, having finally obtained a permanent position, the damage caused is sufficiently compensated in this particular case.
Job security only for those who passed a competitive exam without a permanent position
One of the most delicate points of the ruling is the exact delimitation of who can reach the job security And who doesn't? The Supreme Court closes the door to the automatic conversion of all temporary workers to permanent ones, but opens a specific path for those who have already proven their qualifications through a successful competitive examination.
In essence, only those workers who have passed a selection process for a permanent structural position, they have been left without a position because the number of suitable applicants was higher than the number of positions offered and, subsequently, have been repeatedly hired through temporary contracts in an abusive situation.
The Supreme Court reasons that, in these cases, the conversion to a permanent employment relationship It is not contrary to the lawBecause the worker has already met the constitutional requirements of equality, merit, and ability. Therefore, the conversion of the temporary contract to a permanent one does not violate the Constitution or the Basic Statute of Public Employees (EBEP).
Conversely, the temporary hiring of personnel who have never passed a public employment examination does not, according to the ruling, allow these individuals to automatically become permanent employees as a result of the abuse of temporary contracts. To do so, the court states, would imply break the general rules access to public service.
The doctrine now established by the Supreme Court obliges judicial bodies to distinguish precisely between the two scenarios: those who have passed a competitive examination without a permanent position and have suffered abuse of temporary contracts may request permanent status; those who did not go through a selection process will only have the option of... compensatory damages, although they continue to provide services in the corresponding administration.
The case of the Madrid City Council worker
Another significant issue analyzed by the Plenary of the Social Chamber is that of a municipal sports facility operator from the Madrid City Council. His work history reflects many of the situations experienced by thousands of temporary workers throughout Spain.
This worker began providing services in 2009 with a temporary contract to replace a colleague. From there, she had five more contracts: two for handle peak workloads in swimming pools and sports centers, and three more to fill vacancies that the City Council couldn't yet fill permanently. In total, thirteen years of consecutive temporary contracts in the same position.
The key to her case dates back to 2005, when the Madrid City Council held a competitive examination to fill 184 permanent positions in her category. The worker applied, scoring 21,56 points—above the minimum of 20 required—but was unsuccessful because other applicants achieved higher scores. Despite this, the council continued to employ her through successive temporary contracts.
In 2022, tired of the situation, the worker sued. declaration of fixityThe Supreme Court has finally ruled in his favor, applying the new doctrine: having passed a competitive examination and having remained for years in abusive temporary employment, his relationship must be considered permanent.
In this proceeding, the affected party will also not receive additional financial compensation, since her claim only sought job security and did not claim damages. The ruling thus serves as a practical warning: those who litigate from now on should expressly request job security and compensation repair in the same procedure if they want to opt for both paths.
What happens to temporary staff who have not passed the competitive examination?
For the majority of temporary workers who never reached overcoming an oppositionThe scenario is different. The Supreme Court ruling rules out the possibility of them acquiring permanent status simply because they have suffered from abusive temporary employment. The argument is again based on constitutionality: granting them permanent status without a selection process would violate the principles of access to public employment.
That does not mean, however, that their situation will go unanswered. These workers will be able to claim in court Compensation for the improper use of temporary contracts, even if employees continue working for the affected administration. The aim is to redress the accumulated damages and discourage public bodies from continuing these practices.
When a judge declares that there has been an abuse of temporary employment, he will also have the obligation to report the case to the Labor InspectorateThis, in turn, may open disciplinary proceedings against the responsible administration, applying the scale of serious offenses established in the LISOS (Law on Infringements and Sanctions in the Social Order). In this way, not only is the worker protected, but the aim is to correct the institutional behavior at its root.
Sanctions may be imposed for each affected worker and will be calculated independently of any compensation awarded by the courts. The practical result is that the offending administration It will face a double impact: the economic one, due to the compensation for temporary staff, and the disciplinary one, due to the fines resulting from the abuse.
The Supreme Court makes it clear that none of these rights apply automatically. Each affected party will have to resort to legal action, prove the chain of contracts, and demonstrate that there has actually been an abusive use of temporary employment. A significant increase in cases is therefore expected. litigation in the coming monthsespecially in areas such as healthcare, education, or general administration.
With this new framework, prolonged temporary employment in public administrations is no longer without consequences. From now on, temporary workers who string together contracts for years with structural tasks will have recourse. clearer legal instruments to defend their rights, either by seeking stability in the foreseen cases or by claiming relevant economic compensation.
The set of these rulings establishes a middle ground between two extremes: neither universal permanent employment for all temporary staff, nor impunity for administrations that have abused precarious employment. The Supreme Court aims to balance the protection of workers with respect for the system of access to public employment, responding to an anomaly that had been dragging on for decades in the Spanish public sector.
