Must Article 45(1) and (2) TFEU and Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 be interpreted as precluding a rule, such as that laid down in Article 1(655) of Law No 205/2017, according to which, in order to take part in the procedure for inclusion on the lists compiled for the award of permanent and temporary teaching contracts in Italian AFAM institutions, professional experience gained by candidates at those national institutions alone is taken into account, and not experience gained at peer institutions in other European countries, given that the procedure in question is specifically intended to counter the phenomenon of precarious employment in Italy? If the Court of Justice does not hold the Italian legislation to be contrary, in abstract terms, to the European regulatory framework, can the measures envisaged by that legislation be regarded as proportionate, in concrete terms, in view of the abovementioned public-interest objective?
DOI: 10.5553/EELC/187791072022007002026
European Employment Law Cases |
|
Pending Cases | Case C-132/22, Free MovementBM, NP – v – Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca, reference lodged by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) on 25 February 2022 |
Keywords | Free Movement |
DOI | 10.5553/EELC/187791072022007002026 |
Show PDF Show fullscreen Statistics Citation |
This article has been viewed times. |
This article been downloaded 0 times. |
Suggested citation
, "Case C-132/22, Free Movement", European Employment Law Cases, 2, (2022):111-111
, "Case C-132/22, Free Movement", European Employment Law Cases, 2, (2022):111-111