(Finance) – “The allocation of the benefit to support the ongoing training of teachers” through the 500 euro Teacher Card “is an obligation for both permanent and fixed-term staff, and is reflected in the corresponding training obligation on the part of the defendant Administration – of a contractual nature – and which this Judge shares and makes his own”: this is one of the key passages of the ruling of the Rovigo court in responding favorably to the appeal presented by the lawyers Anief iIn defense of a teacher who worked as a substitute between 2020 and 2024 and who therefore recovers 2,000 euros with her sentence “plus legal interest or monetary revaluation from the date of the right to accreditation until the actual attribution”.
The reference of the labor judge of Rovigo – we read in the note released by the Union – is to the ruling with which “the Council of State (ruling no. 1842/2022) annulled the Prime Ministerial Decree no. 32313 of 2015highlighting how a constitutionally oriented interpretation of Law no. 107/2015 requires that the €500.00 bonus be recognized also to personnel hired on a fixed-term basis, given the conflict of said exclusion with respect to the provisions of Articles 3, 35 and 97 of the Constitution and Articles 29, 63 and 64 of the CCNL of 29/11/2007, according to which the training obligation also applies to precarious teachers, and that the Court of Justice of the European Union also intervened on the matter, which with an order of 18 May 2022, issued in case C-450/21 concluded by establishing that: “Clause 4, point 1, of the framework agreement must be interpreted as precluding a national regulation which reserves only to the permanent teaching staff of the Ministry, and not to the fixed-term teaching staff of that Ministry, the benefit of a financial advantage of 500 euros per year, granted in order to support the continuous training of teachers and to enhance their professional skills”.
Finally, the judge of Rovigo examined “the jurisprudence of legitimacy” ricorando “the ruling of the Supreme Court (ruling no. 29961 published on 27.10.2023), to which express reference is made here also pursuant to art. 118 implementing provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has examined the issue in detail, together with the others, highlighting the destination of the benefit to support the continuous training of teachers, which constitutes an obligation for both permanent and fixed-term staff, and which is reflected in the corresponding training obligation on the part of the defendant Administration – of a contractual nature – and which this Judge shares and makes his own”.
“Once again – comments Marcello Pacifico, national president of Anief – a judge cannot fail to take into account, when examining the appeal for the assignment of the Teacher Card also to temporary staff,in the ruling of the Court of Cassation, which followed the favorable opinions already expressed by both the Council of State and the European Court of Justice. Having said this, I would like to remind you that a precarious teacher should not postpone the possibility of filing an appeal through Anief lawyers: after five years from the signing of the fixed-term contract – concludes the national president of Anief – attempts to recover stolen goods for one’s own professional training are in fact subject to a statute of limitations”.