On the systematic disapplication of Directive 1999/70/EC by the Region of Sicily 

The petitioner complains about the de facto non-application by the Sicilian legislature of national legislation (Legislative Decree No 368 of 6 September 2001) which implemented Directive 1999/70/EC on fixed-term contracts throughout the EU, which is opposed by regional legislation incompatible with Community legislation on fixed-term work. The workers (more than 5 000) to whom the petitioner refers are public employees of municipalities, health authorities, hospitals of various levels and other public administrative bodies, primarily in the Region of Sicily. Initially, they were assigned to work of social utility (LSU/ASU) or work of public utility (PUC). They were subsequently classified as beneficiaries of fixed-term employment contracts, by virtue of a plethora of laws from the 1990s to the present day. This regional legislation permitted the renewal ‘within a period of approximately 28 years, after 1990, of fixed-term employment relationships, in breach of Clause 5 of Directive 1999/70/EC (absence of measures imposing penalties for the abuse of fixed-term contracts beyond 36 months). In particular, the petitioner’s criticisms focus on Regional Law No 17 of 28 December 2004, which the Sicilian courts use as a screen for not applying the national legislation implementing the Community Directive, stating that workers who leave the LSU/ASU category are not subject to state regulation of permanent employment, under Article 77.2 of Regional Law No 17 of 28 December 2004. As proof of the fallacious interpretation of Sicilian case-law, the petitioner refers to Court of Cassation Judgment No 25672 of 27 October 2013, which upheld the appeal of a Sicilian temporary worker who, having performed ordinary duties in the service of a local authority for many years, requested the recognition of the indefinite nature of his employment relationship, and consequently compensation for damages under national law (T.U. public sector employment). The Supreme Court thus overturned the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Palermo, which, by misinterpreting the case of the contract in question, ‘found not in the temporary organisational and production requirements of the local authority, but in the political and social requirements, aimed at overcoming the welfare relationship, typical of work of social utility, to enable the staff in question to acquire professionalism and qualifications’, relied on Clause 2(B) of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC to justify its disapplication.