Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/6925

25.11.2024

(Case C-597/24, Zirvatta)

(C/2024/6925)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C.M.

Respondent: Ministero dell’Istruzione e del Merito

Questions referred

1.Must Article 5 (‘Reasonable accommodation for disabled persons’) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as the Italian legislation contained in the Contratto Collettivo Nazionale Integrativo concernente la mobilità del personale docente, educativo ed A.T.A. [(Supplementary national collective agreement concerning the mobility of teaching, educational and administrative, technical and auxiliary staff)] for the academic year 2017/2018, which, by reason of the combined provisions of its Article 6(2) and Article 13(1) grants the priority referred to in Article 13(1)(III)(1) to the disabled school staff referred to in Article 21 of Law No 104/92, mentioned in Article 601 of Legislative Decree No 297/94, making mobility within a province take precedence over mobility between provinces?

2.Within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b)(i) of Directive 2000/78, is the particular disadvantage at which teachers with a disability [amounting to incapacity] of more than two thirds may be put by the above-mentioned national provisions objectively justified by a legitimate aim, ensuring that highly complex territorial mobility operations which involve the whole of the national territory are carried out by the beginning of the school year, and are the means of achieving that aim appropriate, not going beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued by the legislation and agreements? Or, on the contrary, does the above-mentioned legislation discriminate against the above-mentioned teachers, resulting in the de facto loss of the priority granted in mobility procedures, because the procedures relate only to mobility within a province, and not between provinces, and thus the priority is not absolute (as is provided for in the case of other categories of persons with disabilities)?

The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6925/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—