The Court of Justice of the European Union has issued a new ruling this Thursday regarding whether Spain’s rules on interim staff in abuse of temporary contracts align with EU law. The decision serves as another corrective for Spanish legislation, reaffirms European doctrine, and, depending on whether the government chooses to modify the law, is likely to trigger a wave of litigation in the courts.
Interpretations of the ruling’s effects and who it affects vary among sources, but all agree that the current system of compensation does not meet EU standards and that the government will need to change it. The central disagreement concerns whether the existing Spanish law has room to accept the EU Court’s recommendation to convert those on temporary contracts into permanent staff, when those contracts were used in an abusive manner.
How will Spanish first-instance courts apply the EU reference they must follow? Will the ruling apply to all public employees or only a portion? What will happen to ongoing or completed stabilization processes that involve tens of thousands of interim workers? Answers remain somewhat unclear, though multiple sources consulted for this report aim to shed light on the EU ruling.
What does the ruling say?
The EU Court’s ruling on abuse of temporary staff is not the first for the European judges. They have repeatedly criticized Spain for relying on temporary workers in the public sector and for lacking effective control and sanction mechanisms in cases of noncompliance. This is the first time the Court has addressed career civil servants since the government introduced new rules intended to meet EU doctrine.
The decision addresses three questions. First: Spain’s law does not comply with EU agreements, fails to guard against abuse of temporary staff, and lacks a deterrent sanction mechanism for the administration.
Second: it accepts ongoing stabilization procedures and does not challenge interim staff who have solidified their positions through these processes. However, it notes these procedures are necessary but not sufficient to curb the abuse of temporary employment.
“Since the calls for these processes are independent of whether the temporary use is abusive, they are not suitable to impose proper sanctions for abuse or to remedy the consequences of EU law violations,” states the EU Court. In other words, those left out must receive redress from the state.
Third: the compensation system for staff who end a temporary arrangement with the administration is not aligned with national law. Currently, interim workers who participate in special processes to secure a permanent post and fail to do so receive compensation of 20 days per year worked, capped at 12 monthly payments.
Because this amount also applies to non-abusive temporary staff, the EU Court explains that it neither provides appropriate redress for abuse over a given period nor fully compensates the damages from such abuses.
Who is affected by the ruling?
The number of potentially affected people varies by source, but the scope likely runs into thousands. The Thursday ruling follows a previous EU decision from February that already signaled its stance. Back then it addressed three applicants who were part of the permanent staff but hired on a temporary basis, setting the stage for broader implications for the public sector.
The key novelty in the latest ruling is a clear extension to career civil servants who occupy a temporary post. This broadens the EU Court’s conclusions to cover the entire public service, not just certain categories of workers.
Will interim staff on abusive contracts automatically become permanent?
If the ruling guarantees permanent status for those on abusive temporary contracts, that is the main point of debate. Some unions, lawyers aligned with temporary workers, and trade bodies believe conversion to permanent status is automatic. Others argue the Court’s wording stops short of a blanket automatic conversion. The government has chosen to wait for answers from the Court on questions submitted by the national Supreme Court before commenting further.
The EU Court notes that automatic conversion can be a sanction for abusing temporary contracts only if the national legal framework does not provide another mechanism that aligns with EU law. A lawyer involved in multiple interims cases describes the issue and notes that national constitutional principles and legal rules that emphasize merit and ability as the route to permanence complicate a universal, automatic conversion process.
A different attorney, who has spent years representing interim workers across Spain, argues that permanent status is the only correct option, even if the EU Court’s literal language is less explicit about it.
Should stabilization processes be repeated?
The ruling endorses stabilization efforts begun in 2021, such as merit-based and competitive examinations, but it questions whether these steps alone are sufficient to prevent the abuse of temporary employment.
People who have already secured a permanent position through one of the special processes should have no fear about losing their place. The situation may be different for ongoing, unfinished competitions, though the analysis remains nuanced.
Labor unions have varied perspectives. Some say recent EU guidance validates their strategy for ending temporary employment practices. A union leader notes that thousands were stabilized through government programs, while others warn against complacency or potential legal challenges if targets are missed.
A prominent state-level union urges caution about any program that could permit temporary staff to extend beyond limits set for 2025, signaling potential future litigation if noncompliance persists.
What about the compensation changes?
Where the EU Court has been most decisive is on compensation. It has challenged the current Spanish framework, which grants 20 days’ pay per year of service, capped at 12 monthly payments, to temporary workers who are displaced when a permanent post is filled by another candidate through opposition procedures.
The Court states that this scheme does not adequately repair abuses that last a certain number of years and does not fully compensate the damages from such abuses. National courts are already recognizing higher compensations in line with the February ruling, and expectations are that such awards will rise further in the wake of the latest decision.
Relevant sources and voices from the sector concur that changes are pending, and the national authorities will have to adjust the framework to reflect EU requirements, or risk more litigation and higher damages in the near term.