The European Court of Justice issued a ruling this past Thursday that marks a correction for Spain’s handling of interim workers and is likely to fuel more lawsuits in courts. Interpretations about the effects of the decision and who it affects vary among sources, but all agree that the ECJ’s decision will push the government to act and revise its latest regulation.
How will Spanish first-instance courts apply the reference point set by Europe and must follow it? Does it affect all public employees or only a portion? What happens to ongoing or completed extraordinary stabilization processes in which tens of thousands of interim workers participate? Answers are not entirely clear yet, though the sources consulted for this report attempt to clarify the EJCs controversial ruling.
2. What does the ruling say
The ECJ’s ruling on the situation of abuse of temporary workers is not the court’s first. Repeatedly, EU judges have scolded Spain for overusing the category of temporary workers in public administration and for lacking effective control and sanction mechanisms in cases of non-compliance. This time, however, it is the first decision since the government drafted and approved a new rule designed to align with EU doctrine.
The judgment addresses three questions. First, it clarifies the blurred concept of an indefinido no fijo public employee. This profile is unusual, being indefinite yet not fixed, a label the courts have been weaving into their rulings and that does not appear in the Basic Statute of Public Employees. It defines a worker in the labor staff who holds a structurally permanent post under an occasional contract and without an exit expectation. Hence, indefinido but not fijo. The ruling states these employees are temporary, abuse occurs, and the government must prevent and compensate them.
Second, ongoing stabilization processes are a necessary but not sufficient condition to curb abuses of temporality by administrations. The EJCs wording suggests insufficient guarantees that such processes will be effectively invoked, and warns that they do not seem able to prevent abusive use of successive fixed-term relations by the employer. Those left out should receive compensation.
Third, the system of compensation for those who end a temporary relationship with the administration does not align with the law. Currently, interim workers who apply for extraordinary processes to secure a permanent position but fail still receive compensation of 20 days per year worked, capped at 12 monthly payments. Since this amount also applies to non-abusive temporary workers, the ECJ finds it not sufficiently deterrent and urges the government to stop the abuse of interim workers.
3. Who is affected by the ruling?
Opinions on the number of potentially affected workers differ by source. Unions such as CCOO and UGT argue the ruling only affects temporary workers in the labor staff. Up to now, the Supreme Court’s doctrine linked the indefinido no fijo label to labor staff, and the ECJ’s three cases concerned labor personnel.
Other interpretations, such as those from interims platforms, argue Europe has never historically distinguished between civil service and labor bodies, only between public and private workers. For them, the ruling should guide all temporary public workers.
Discrepancies in interpretation could have substantial consequences, since one reading limits impact to thousands while the other could affect hundreds of thousands. In any case, the final figure remains unclear.
4. Should stabilization processes be repeated?
Finished processes should not be reopened, according to the mixed opinions of respondents. The EJCs own record clearly states that invoking these processes within established timelines could, in principle, prevent abuses from the repeated use of fixed-term relations while waiting for definite appointment.
Thus, those who have already achieved stabilization through one of the distinct administrations’ extraordinary competitions should not fear losing their posts. Those in ongoing competitions, however, may face a different scenario.
CCOO and UGT argue that ongoing processes comply with the law and should not be halted. Lawyer Nacho Parra of Col·lectiu Ronda believes those interim staff in the labor category might pursue court action to require at least a temporary suspension of the competition until a Spanish court clarifies if a tribunal should recognize a right to automatic permanent status.
Josep Jover, allied with interim platforms, takes a broader view and believes even interim officials could invoke the EJCs ruling to stop the process and move directly to permanent status.
5. What happens to those left out and their compensation?
As with the prior issues, responses vary by source. Parra contends that lab interim staff who fail the “macro exams” and are dismissed could challenge their termination, argue that the compensation under law is inadequate, and seek higher compensation. In his view, they should turn to a court rather than wait for administrations to act automatically.
Jover suggests that those dismissed should pursue a claim not about higher compensation but about forcing the administration to create a new merit-based competition that allows a direct path to a permanent post without a new exam.
6. A new ruling on the horizon
The controversy remains lively, but the issue is not closed. The government has not offered specifics on how it will align with the EJCs ruling but has confirmed that stabilization processes will continue. Public Services authorities say the goal to reduce 300,000 temporary positions by the end of 2024 has reached 75 percent of that target.
The discussion continues, with legal scholars and unions watching closely how Spain implements and balances temporary worker protections with its public administration needs.