KAVGA AND OTHERS v. GREECE

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 41897/18
Sofia KAVGA and Others against Greece
and 5 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 October 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Peeter Roosma, President,
 Ioannis Ktistakis,
 Lətif Hüseynov, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the applications to the Greek Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms N. Marioli, President of the State Legal Council;

the fact that the Hungarian Government did not make use of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention);

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

2.  Notice of the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the Court of Cassation’s tacit refusal to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (“the CJEU”) was given to the Government.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

3.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

4.  Τhe Government informed the Court that Ms Sevasti Gardikou, one of the applicants in application no. 49138/18, had died before the Government had been given notice of her complaints. The Government asked the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases in respect of that applicant, given that no legal successors had joined the proceedings.

5.  The Court notes that no heirs or close relatives have expressed the wish to pursue the application on behalf of the deceased applicant. It has been the Court’s practice to strike applications out of the list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue the application (see Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 44, 30 March 2009, with further references). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the case.

6.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the Court’s list of cases with regard to the applicant Ms Sevasti Gardikou.

7.  The general principles on the right of access to a procedure for referring a question to the CJEU were summarised in Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium (nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07, §§ 57-62, 20 September 2011) and reiterated in Sanofi Pasteur v. France (no. 25137/16, §§ 69-71, 13 February 2020; concerning the CJEU’s case‑law on preliminary references, see §§ 36‑38).

8.  The Court further notes that the CJEU has ruled that the domestic courts referred to in the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU are not obliged to refer a question about the interpretation of EU law raised before them if the question is not relevant, that is to say, if the answer to that question, whatever it may be, cannot have any effect on the outcome of the case (see Baydar v. the Netherlands, no. 55385/14, § 49, 24 April 2018).

9.  The Court further accepts that, in concreto, the reasons for the rejection of a request for a preliminary ruling under the CILFIT criteria (see the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 6 October 1982 in CILFIT, C‑283/81, EU:C:1982:335, paragraph 21) can be inferred from the reasoning of the remainder of the decision given by the court in question or from reasons considered implicit in the decision rejecting the request (see Sanofi Pasteur, cited above, § 71, with further references).

10.  Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the applicants requested that a preliminary ruling be sought from the CJEU in the event of doubt as to whether clause 4 of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed‑term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (“Directive 1999/70/EC”) allowed for a difference in salary treatment on the sole basis that a contract was classified as a project‑based contract rather than an employment contract. The Court of Cassation, endorsing the reasoning of the plenary Court of Cassation in decision no. 16/2017 on the same legal matter, concluded that the two categories of employees were not comparable. It found that the employees hired under project‑based contracts or fixed-term contracts had been recruited outside of the relevant legal procedures, that is to say, following a competitive examination or selection by an independent authority. Moreover, those employees were aware that they would be fulfilling ongoing and permanent needs, regardless of the terms stated in their individual contracts. In the domestic court’s view, this constituted objective grounds within the meaning of Article 4 of Presidential Decree no. 164/2004 (transposing the relevant clause of Directive 1999/70/EC into national law) which justified the difference in salary treatment.

11.  The Court considers that, by addressing the applicants’ arguments in that way, the Court of Cassation acted within the scope of the exceptions provided for by the CJEU’s case‑law, specifically the absence of any doubt as to the correct application of EU law and the irrelevance of the argument raised. Furthermore, given that the requests for a preliminary ruling were made only in the alternative, the Court concludes that the reasoning used by the Court of Cassation was sufficient in the light of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65542/12, § 173, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). Although the Court of Cassation did not explicitly address the applicants’ request to seek a preliminary ruling from the CJEU, its decision cannot, in the specific circumstances of the case, be considered arbitrary given that it followed clearly from the court’s reasoning – in line with the above‑mentioned decision of the plenary Court of Cassation – why it considered a preliminary reference to be redundant. The applicants’ complaint must therefore be rejected as manifestly ill‑founded.

12.  It follows that the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike application no. 49138/18 out in so far as applicant Ms Sevasti Gardikou is concerned;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 6 November 2025.

 Olga Chernishova Peeter Roosma
 Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

List of cases:

No.

Application no.

Applicant
Year of birth
Place of residence
Nationality

Particular circumstances of the application

Decision of the Court of Cassation and date of finalisation

1.

41897/18

1. Sofia KAVGA
1958
Piraeus
Greek

2. Kyriaki BAIRAMISLI-BORMBOTSI
1963
Chrysoupoli, Kavala
Greek

3. Evagelia BITZARAKI-PRASANAKI
1961
Athens
Greek

 

4. Lambrini BOUNI
1951
Kavala
Greek

5. Dimitra DANTI
1954
Lechaina Ilias
Greek

6. Vasiliki KAFETZI
1948
Ag. Anargyroi
Greek

7. Irini KELVASILIDOU
1953
Peristeri
Greek

 

8. Magdalini KOLETSI-KONTOPOULOU
1966
Chania
Greek

9. Nafsika KOLOBATSOU
1965
Acharnai
Greek

10. Evdokia KOMBINOGLOU
1944
Kilkis
Greek

11. Anna KONTOGIANNIDOU
1960
Kavala
Greek

 

12. Maria KOTAKIDOU-SIGINOU
1963
Pefka, Thessaloniki
Greek

13. Irini KOTSIFAKI-SVOURAKI
1952
Mournies, Chania
Greek

14. Sofia KOUMAKI
1950
Heraklion
Greek

15. Eleni KOUROU
1958
Athens
Greek

 

16. Nikolitsa LAGOU
1944
Floka, Achaia
Greek

17. Sofia LAMBOU
1956
Mesologgi
Greek

18. Maria LEPTOKARIDOU
1963
Thessaloniki
Greek

19. Sofia LIAKOU
1959
Aspropyrgos
Greek

 

20. Niki MAKRIDOU
1949
Elefsina
Greek

21. Vasiliki MALAMIDOU
1955
Thessaloniki
Greek

22. Panagiota MALLI
1967
Nea Fokea, Chalkidiki
Greek

23. Konstantinia MANAKA
1957
Aigeiros, Rodopi
Greek

 

24. Aikaterini MANOUSELI-FOUNTOULAKI
1955
Chania
Greek

25. Sofia MANTELOU
1969
Chaidari
Greek

26. Konstantinia MANTHOU
1958
Peristeri
Greek

27. Maria MARGIOLA
1958
Nestani, Arkadia
Greek

 

28. Aikaterini MARINAKI
1952
Chania
Greek

29. Anastasia MASSELOU
1956
Souda, Chania
Greek

30. Eleni MATAFTSI
1966
Pefkochori, Chalkidiki
Greek

31. Konstantina MATSOUNI
1963
Karyotika, Korinthia
Greek

 

32. Chrysi MAVREDAKI-KATSOULAKI
1950
Chania
Greek

33. Plousia MAVRIKOU-STOGIANTSAKI
1968
Xylagani, Rodopi
Greek

34. Eleni MAVROMMATI-KYVEZIDOU
1951
Thessaloniki
Greek

35. Natalia MENTESIDI
1959
Perivolaki, Lagkadas
Greek

36. Eleni MICHELIOUDAKI-PANTINAKI
1955
Mournies, Chania
Greek

37. Ioulia (Julianna) MIMIN (MUMUN)
1962
Thessaloniki
Hungarian

38. Alexandra MITROLIOU
1951
Ag. Ioannis Renti
Greek

39. Theodora MITSOPOULOU
1953
Acharnai
Greek

40. Konstantina MOLLA
1960
Kavala
Greek

41. Elisavet MOUZAKIDOU-MOURATIDOU
1959
Thessaloniki
Greek

42. Styliani NIKIFORAKI-TZAGARAKI
1972
Mournies, Chania
Greek

43. Giannoula NIKOU
1967
Patras
Greek

 

44. Theodora PALASKA
1953
Ioannina
Greek

45. Anthoula PALLA
1956
Livadi, Thessaloniki
Greek

46. Pavlos PALLAS
1949
Livadi, Thessaloniki
Greek

47. Aikaterini PALPANI
1965
Eleftheroupoli, Kavala
Greek

 

48. Sofia PANAGIOTOPOULOU-KARAMANOU
1955
Perama
Greek

49. Eleni PANAGOPOULOU
1951
Patras
Greek

50. Anna PAPADEA
1956
Kalamata
Greek

51. Despina PAPADOPOULOU
1948
Thessaloniki
Greek

 

52. Parthena XENITOPOULOU
1955
Aigaleo
Greek

53. Chariklia XENOPOULOU
1957
Thessaloniki
Greek

54. Aikaterini XOUPA
1947
Livadi, Thessaloniki
Greek

The applicants, who worked as cleaners in public schools, had been employed by the Greek State over the course of several years under successive project‑based contracts. After having been hired in December 2006 and January 2007 under permanent employment contracts, the applicants instituted legal proceedings seeking (a) recognition of their years of service under project‑based contracts as prior experience for the purpose of determining their salary grade; and (b) payment of the difference between the salary and allowances paid to employees on permanent contracts and those they had been paid while working under project‑based contracts. In that regard, they relied on clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC, pursuant to which fixed‑term workers are not to be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent workers solely because they have a fixed‑term contract or relation unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds. The Athens one‑member First Instance Court dismissed the applicants’ action by decision no. 150/2011, which was overturned by decision no. 1222/2016 of the Athens Court of Appeal. The Greek State and the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the appellate court’s decision. By a memorandum dated 12 October 2017 addressed to the Court of Cassation, the applicants requested that a preliminary ruling be sought from the CJEU in the event of doubt as to whether clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC allowed for a difference in salary treatment on the sole basis that a contract was classified as a project-based contract rather than an employment contract. The Court of Cassation, endorsing the reasoning of the plenary Court of Cassation in decision no. 16/2017 on the same legal matter, partially quashed the appellate court’s decision by decision no. 373/2018. Without making any reference to the applicants’ request for a preliminary ruling, it held that the two categories of employees were not comparable. It found that the employees hired under project‑based contracts or fixed‑term contracts had been recruited outside of the relevant legal procedure, that is to say, following a competitive examination or selection by an independent authority. Moreover, those employees were aware that they would be fulfilling ongoing and permanent needs, regardless of the terms stated in their individual contracts. In the domestic court’s view, this constituted objective grounds within the meaning of Article 4 of Presidential Decree no. 164/2004 (transposing the relevant clause of the Directive) which justified the difference in salary treatment.

Decision no. 373/2018, delivered on 20 February 2018 and finalised on 27 February 2018

2.

49113/18

1. Maria ATHANASOPOULOU
1948
Patras
Greek

2. Athina ALEXOPOULOU-MIKROULI
1965
Patras
Greek

3. Vasiliki ANAGNOSTOPOULOU
1962
Patras
Greek

4. Afroditi ANTONOPOULOU
1962
Patras
Greek

5. Argyro ASIMAKOPOULOU
1969
Rio, Patras
Greek

6. Stavroula BOULIOU
1968
Amarynthos
Greek

7. Spyridoula BOUSIA
1962
Patras
Greek

8. Eleni CHATZI
1966
Evia
Greek

9. Dimitra CHATZIGIANNAKIDOU-PETROUTSOU
1959
Patras
Greek

10. Eleni CHRONOPOULOU
1963
Patras
Greek

11. Maria DALAPA
1967
Patras
Greek

12. Adamantia DARAMOUSKA-PAVLIDAKI
1951
Patras
Greek

13. Georgia DIMITROPOULOU
1958
Ovrya
Greek

14. Zacharoula GIAKOUMI
1974
Chalkida
Greek

 

15. Vasiliki KALAMATIANOU
1964
Lefkada
Greek

16. Akrivo KAOURA-GAZI
1962
Lefkada
Greek

17. Alexandra KAPATSOULIA-KOUTSANTONI
1951
Patras
Greek

18. Olga KAPOGIANNOPOULOU
1958
Patras
Greek

 

19. Efthymia KAPONI
1951
Patras
Greek

20. Pinelopi KARAMBASI
1961
Akrata
Greek

21. Sofia-Agathi KARANIKA
1965
Karpenisi
Greek

22. Maria KAREFILI-CHARALAMBOPOULOU
1954
Aigio
Greek

 

23. Christina KASOUMI-LEIVADA
1959
Patras
Greek

24. Anna KITSAKI
1962
Patras
Greek

25. Maria KOLLIA
1968
Patras
Greek

26. Argyri KONTINOU
1965
Aigio
Greek

 

27. Theodora KOSMOPOULOU
1950
Patras
Greek

28. Lambrini KOSTINA-PARASKEVOPOULOU
1948
Patras
Greek

29. Nikolitsa KOSTOPOULOU
1956
Patras
Greek

30. Vasiliki KOSTOPOULOU
1948
Aigio
Greek

 

31. Aikaterini KOTSI
1954
Chalkida
Greek

32. Pinelopi KOURACHANI
1957
Patras
Greek

33. Foteini KYRIAKOPOULOU
1964
Patras
Greek

34. Maria LAMBOURA
1947
Aigio
Greek

 

35. Georgia LAMBROU
1952
Patras
Greek

36. Elli LATANI
1949
Aigio
Greek

37. Zoi LEONTI
1967
Chalkida
Greek

38. Ioanna MARKOPOULOU
1957
Patras
Greek

 

39. Andrianna NIACHOU
1965
Koukouli, Patras
Greek

40. Panagiota PANAGOPOULOU
1954
Patras
Greek

41. Vasiliki PAPADATOU
1954
Patras
Greek

42. Konstantina PAPADOPOULOU
1958
Patras
Greek

 

43. Athanasia PAVLOPOULOU-IOANNOU
1961
Patras
Greek

44. Stavroula PIERRATOU
1964
Aigio
Greek

45. Aikaterini SERROUKA-ALEXOPOULOU
1969
Paralia, Patras
Greek

46. Isaia SIDIROPOULOU
1957
Paralia, Patras
Greek

47. Christina SOTIROPOULOU
1970
Zarouchleika, Patras
Greek

48. Foteini SPETSERI
1960
Patras
Greek

49. Aspasia SPYROPOULOU
1958
Patras
Greek

50. Konstantina SPYROU
1966
Aigio
Greek

 

51. Konstantina STEFANOPOULOU
1949
Patras
Greek

52. Zoi THANOPOULOU
1962
Patras
Greek

53. Georgia THEODOROPOULOU
1972
Aigio
Greek

54. Anastasia TOUNTA
1952
Chalkida
Greek

 

55. Vasiliki TSAMI
1952
Patras
Greek

56. Angeliki TSAPALOU
1965
Ag. Vasilios, Patras
Greek

57. Evgenia XYLOGIANNOPOULOU
1954
Diakopto
Greek

58. Giannitsa ZACHAROPOULOU
1954
Patras
Greek

The applicants, who worked as cleaners in public schools, had been employed by the Greek State over the course of several years under successive project‑based contracts. After having been hired in December 2006 and January 2007 under permanent employment contracts, the applicants instituted legal proceedings seeking (a) recognition of their years of service under project‑based contracts as prior experience for the purpose of determining their salary grade; and (b) payment of the difference between the salary and allowances paid to employees on permanent contracts and those they had been paid while working under project‑based contracts. In that regard, they relied on clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC, pursuant to which fixed‑term workers are not to be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent workers solely because they have a fixed‑term contract or relation unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds. The Athens one‑member First Instance Court dismissed the applicants’ action by decision no. 207/2011, which was overturned by decision no. 3530/2014 of the Athens Court of Appeal. The Greek State lodged an appeal on points of law against the appellate court’s decision. By a memorandum dated 26 October 2017 addressed to the Court of Cassation, the applicants requested that a preliminary ruling be sought from the CJEU in the event of doubt as to whether clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC allowed for a difference in salary treatment on the sole basis that a contract was classified as a project‑based contract rather than an employment contract. The Court of Cassation, endorsing the reasoning of the plenary Court of Cassation in decision no. 16/2017 on the same legal matter, partially quashed the appellate court’s decision by its decision no. 476/2018. Without making any reference to the applicants’ request for a preliminary ruling, it held that the two categories of employees were not comparable. It found that the employees hired under project‑based contracts or fixed-term contracts had been recruited outside of the relevant legal procedures, that is to say, following a competitive examination or selection by an independent authority. Moreover, those employees were aware that they would be fulfilling ongoing and permanent needs, regardless of the terms stated in their individual contracts. In the domestic court’s view, this constituted objective grounds within the meaning of Article 4 of Presidential Decree no. 164/2004 (transposing the relevant clause of the Directive) which justified the difference in salary treatment.

Decision no. 476/2018, delivered on 6 March 2018 and finalised on 7 March 2018

3.

49123/18

1. Konstantina VARSAMA
1963
Heraklion
Greek

2. Aikaterini BALTIRI
1958
Kavala
Greek

3. Anastasia CHATZAKI
1956
Kavala
Greek

4. Vasiliki CHATZI
1965
Kavala
Greek

 

5. Fotini CHATZIANASTASIOU
1953
Kavala
Greek

6. Artemisia CHORIATI
1957
Heraklion 
Greek

7. Ioanna DELIGIANNI
1954
Heraklion
Greek

8. Konstantinos DOMZARIDIS
1952
Drama
Greek

 

9. Maria GIANNIKI
1955
Drama
Greek

10. Alexandra GIANNITSAKI
1947
Nea Karya, Kavala
Greek

11. Ioulieta IOSIFIDOU
1967
Kavala
Greek

12. Aspasia KALOGERAKI
1956
Heraklion
Greek

 

13. Krystalli KAMBOUROGLOU
1962
Heraklion
Greek

14. Styliani KARAKASI
1965
Kavala
Greek

15. Eleni KARATZA
1957
Kavala
Greek

16. Marina KONTOLIA
1971
Kavala
Greek

 

17. Aikaterini KYPRIOTAKI
1954
Heraklion
Greek

18. Theodosia MAOUNATZI
1953
Kavala,
Greek

19. Eleni MATHIOUDAKI
1959
Rethymno
Greek

20. Paschalia MATSIOU
1962
Drama
Greek

 

21. Stavroula MAZARAKI
1956
Kavala,
Greek

22. Erofili MICHELAKI
1969
Heraklion
Greek

23. Kalliopi PAPADAKI
1967
Lasithi
Greek

24. Ernestina PERIVOLARI
1957
Kavala,
German

 

25. Chrysi PETROULAKI
1959
Rethymno
Greek

26. Aikaterini PITSIDIANAKI
1963
Rethymno
Greek

27. Aikaterini POLYCHRONAKI
1961
Heraklion
Greek

28. Soultana POZATZI
1964
Kavala,
Greek

 

29. Aikaterini PSIMOPOULOU
1957
Heraklion
Greek

30. Aikaterini SARRI-MAKRIDAKI
1967
Heraklion 
Greek

31. Vaia SPYRIDONOS
1965
Kavala,
Greek

32. Stefania TOPALIDOU
1965
Kavala,
Greek

 

33. Giannoula TOUVLATZI
1952
Kavala
Greek

34. Eirini TRIANTAFYLLAKI
1949
Heraklion
Greek

35. Saia TSAMOURGIANNI
1957
Kavala,
Greek

36. Despina TSIMAGEORGI
1948
Kavala,
Greek

 

37. Giasemo TSOMBANI
1969
Chrysoupoli, Kavala
Greek

38. Maria VLACHAKI
1969
Lasithi
Greek

39. Christina XARGIA
1951
Kavala
Greek

40. Niki ZACHARIOUDAKI
1959
Heraklion
Greek

 

41. Styliani ZERVAKI
1962
Heraklion
Greek

The applicants, who worked as cleaners in public schools, had been employed by the Greek State over the course of several years under successive project‑based contracts. After having been hired in December 2006 and January 2007 under permanent employment contracts, the applicants instituted legal proceedings seeking (a) recognition of their years of service under project‑based contracts as prior experience for the purpose of determining their salary grade; and (b) payment of the difference between the salary and allowances paid to employees on permanent contracts and those they had been paid while working under project‑based contracts. In that regard, they relied on clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC, pursuant to which fixed‑term workers are not to be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent workers solely because they have a fixed‑term contract or relation unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds. The Athens one-member First Instance Court dismissed the applicants’ action by decision no. 209/2011, which was overturned by decision no. 6586/2014 of the Athens Court of Appeal. The Greek State and the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the appellate court’s decision. By a memorandum dated 24 October 2017 addressed to the Court of Cassation, the applicants requested that a preliminary ruling be sought from the CJEU in the event of doubt as to whether clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC allowed for a difference in salary treatment on the sole basis that a contract was classified as a project‑based contract rather than an employment contract. The Court of Cassation, endorsing the reasoning of the plenary Court of Cassation in decision no. 16/2017 on the same legal matter, partially quashed the appellate court’s decision by its decision no. 477/2018. Without making any reference to the applicants’ request for a preliminary ruling, it held that the two categories of employees were not comparable. It found that the employees hired under project‑based contracts or fixed‑term contracts had been recruited outside of the relevant legal procedures, that is to say, following a competitive examination or selection by an independent authority. Moreover, those employees were aware that they would be fulfilling ongoing and permanent needs, regardless of the terms stated in their individual contracts. In the domestic court’s view, this constituted objective grounds within the meaning of Article 4 of Presidential Decree no. 164/2004 (transposing the relevant clause of the Directive) which justified the difference in salary treatment.

Decision no. 477/2018, delivered on 6 March 2018 and finalised on 7 March 2018

4.

49134/18

1. Fevronia AINALI
1964
Thessaloniki
Greek

2. Ioanna ALEXANDRI
1953
Pyrgos Ilias
Greek

3. Zoi ALEXANDRI
1976
Kranea, Karditsa
Greek

 

4. Aikaterini ALEXIOU
1956
Doliana, Ioannina
Greek

5. Aspasia ANTONAKAKI
1964
Chania
Greek

6. Dimitrios ANTONIADIS
1949
Serres
Greek

7. Eleni ARAMBATZI
1958
Kato Ag. Ioannis, Pieria
Greek

 

8. Theodora ARCHONTAKI
1948
Chania
Greek

9. Dionysia ASLANIDOU
1968
Neo Keramidi, Pieria
Greek

10. Maria BAGATELA
1962
Kallithea
Greek

11. Eleni BALAFA
1950
Galatsi
Greek

 

12. Maria BALTZOI
1949
Athens
Greek

13. Athina BANTI
1955
Kesariani
Greek

14. Eleni BEZEVEGI
1944
Preveza
Greek

15. Maria BILIRI-BAKALI
1958
Ag. Dimitrios, Attica
Greek

 

16. Irmonta BOLANO
1953
Athens
Greek

17. Aliki BOURI
1960
Athens
Greek

18. Athina BRATSI
1962
Athens
Greek

19. Grigoris BRATSIS
1954
Athens
Greek

 

20. Sofia DASKALOPOULOU
1945
Palamas, Karditsa
Greek

21. Eleni DIMITRELOU
1961
Markopoulo, Attica
Greek

22. Athanasia DIMITROPOULOU
1965
Pyrgos Ilias
Greek

23. Stella EFTHYMIADOU
1949
Kavala
Greek

 

24. Maria GALIOURI-SAKIZOGLOU
1957
Serres
Greek

25. Frideriki GAVGIOTAKI-KINOPOULOU
1947
Thessaloniki
Greek

26. Evgenia GIALELLI
1949
Kalamata
Greek

27. Eleni GIAMOUZI
1958
Katerini
Greek

 

28. Eftychia GNAFAKI-SFAKIOTAKI
1963
Chania
Greek

29. Despina GORE
1964
Thessaloniki
Greek

30. Natalia ILIADOU
1958
Neapoli, Thessaloniki
Greek

31. Georgia ILIAKI
1959
Chania
Greek

 

32. Dimitra INTA
1956
Paiania, Attica
Greek

33. Rozalia KAMBITSI-BOURATOGLOU
1961
Athens
Greek

34. Olymbia KANDILA
1964
Kolindros, Pieria
Greek

35. Eftychia KAPANTAI
1969
Pano Daratsou, Nea Kydonia, Chania
Greek

 

36. Anatoli KARAGIANNIDOU
1959
Sykies, Thessaloniki
Greek

37. Paraskevi KARASAVVIDOU-PODIKOGLOU
1951
Thessaloniki
Greek

38. Ourania KARAVASILI
1971
Sidirokastro, Serres
Greek

39. Maria KARYPIDOU
1948
Katerini
Greek

 

40. Erasmia KATAKI-MAKRYGIANNAKI
1968
Chania
Greek

41. Maria KATSOULI
1951
Heraklion
Greek

42. Chrysafo MALIGOURA
1955
Ag. Artemios
Greek

43. Vasiliki MANTZIOU-STEFOU
1951
Spata, Attica
Greek

 

44. Aikaterini MANTZOUTSOU
1962
Athens
Greek

45. Eleni MASTRAPA-ARACHOVA
1961
Piraeus
Greek

46. Athanasia MASTROGIANNOUDI-ASARIOTAKI
1963
Kamatero
Greek

47. Maria MAVRIKI
1949
Piraeus
Greek

48. Dafni MAVROU
1946
Aspropyrgos
Greek

49. Styliani MAZI
1974
Galatsi
Greek

50. Anastasia MELIDONI
1966
Kallithea
Greek

51. Eleni MELLIOU
1958
Ilioupoli
Greek

 

52. Maria MICHAILIDI-GENOUZI
1958
Acharnes
Greek

53. Zoi MICHAILIDOU-BOULIOPOULOU
1964
Athens
Greek

54. Maria MOUCHIKA
1960
Labrini
Greek

55. Athina NIKOPOULOU
1949
Petroupoli
Greek

 

56. Simela ORFANIDOU
1955
Kamatero
Greek

57. Panagiotis PAFLIAS
1955
Kesariani
Greek

58. Aikaterini PAFOULIA-FERENTINOU
1963
Kesariani
Greek

59. Aggeliki PANAGIOTOPOULOU
1956
Vyronas, Attica
Greek

 

60. Eleni PAPADA
1941
Salamina
Greek

61. Aikaterini PAPALOUKA-TSEVA
1945
Palaio Faliro
Greek

62. Ioanna PAPANDREOU
1962
Ilion
Greek

63. Eleni PAPAZAFIRI-KAVGA
1960
Galatsi
Greek

 

64. Vasiliki PAPPA-CHORMOVITOU
1961
Kato Petralona
Greek

65. Venetia PARISSOU
1953
N. Kosmos
Greek

66. Aikaterini POURNARA
1961
Peristeri
Greek

67. Zoi PRITSOULI
1962
Ano Liosia
Greek

 

68. Georgia THEOCHARI
1968
Katerini
Greek

69. Peristera VARDAKA
1959
Kozani
Greek

70.Eleni VARI
1952
Livadi, Thessaloniki
Greek

71.Evdokia VENETIDOU
1952
Thessaloniki
Greek

 

72.Eleni XANTHOPOULOU
1963
Aspropyrgos
Greek

73. Georgia XIROU
1951
Zografou
Greek

74. Maria ZAPROU
1953
Serres
Greek

75. Eleni ZARAMITROPOULOU
1962
Katerini
Greek

 

76. Sevasti ZLATANOU
1954
Kavala
Greek

77. Sofia ZOUPI
1955
Kallikratia
Greek

The applicants, who worked as cleaners in public schools, had been employed by the Greek State over the course of several years under successive project‑based contracts. After having been hired in December 2006 and January 2007 under permanent employment contracts, the applicants instituted legal proceedings seeking (a) recognition of their years of service under project‑based contracts as prior experience for the purpose of determining their salary grade; and (b) payment of the difference between the salary and allowances paid to employees on permanent contracts and those they had been paid while working under project‑based contracts. In that regard, they relied on clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC, pursuant to which fixed‑term workers are not to be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent workers solely because they have a fixed‑term contract or relation unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds. By decision no. 92/2015, the Athens one‑member First Instance Court partially accepted the applicants’ complaints. Following appeals lodged by both the Greek State and the applicants, the Athens Court of Appeal, by decision no. 787/2016, partly upheld the applicants’ appeal. The applicants and the Greek State lodged an appeal on points of law against that decision. By a memorandum dated 24 October 2017 addressed to the Court of Cassation, the applicants requested that a preliminary ruling be sought from the CJEU in the event of doubt as to whether clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC allowed for a difference in salary treatment on the sole basis that a contract was classified as a project-based contract rather than an employment contract. The Court of Cassation, endorsing the reasoning of the plenary Court of Cassation in decision no. 16/2017 on the same legal matter, partially quashed the appellate court’s decision by its decision no. 378/2018. Without making any reference to the applicants’ request for a preliminary ruling, it held that the two categories of employees were not comparable. It found that the employees hired under project-based contracts or fixed-term contracts had been recruited outside of the relevant legal procedures, that is to say, following a competitive examination or selection by an independent authority. Moreover, those employees were aware that they would be fulfilling ongoing and permanent needs, regardless of the terms stated in their individual contracts. In the domestic court’s view, this constituted objective grounds within the meaning of Article 4 of Presidential Decree no. 164/2004 (transposing the relevant clause of the Directive) which justified the difference in salary treatment.

Decision no. 378/2018 delivered on 20 February 2018 and finalised on 27 February 2018

5.

49138/18

1. Stamatoula ALAVERA
1973
Agia Paraskevi
Greek

2. Afroditi ALEXANDRAKI
1973
Chania
Greek

3. Vasiliki ANASTASELOU
1957
Preveza
Greek

4. Niki ANASTASIOU
1954
Larissa
Greek

5. Trisevgeni ANDRIOPOULOU
1952
Ano Achaia Achaias
Greek

6. Ioanna ANTONAKOPOULOU
1965
Ano Liosia
Greek

7. Kyriaki ANTONAKOU
1961
Heraklion
Greek

8. Georgia APOSTOLOPOULOU
1973
Pyrgos
Greek

9. Maria APOSTOLOU-DIMITRIOU
1952
Digeliotika, Aigialeia
Greek

10. Georgia ARAMBATZI
1948
Agios Petros, Kilkis
Greek

11. Ira ARZOUMANOVA
1969
Thessaloniki
Greek

 

12. Eleni DARMA-PAPAVASILIOU
1953
Patras
Greek

13. Eleni DESPOTOULI-NTINI
1963
Athens
Greek

14. Aggeliki DIMA
1965
Nikaia
Greek

15. Anna DOVRI-KOUGIOUMTZIDOU
1955
Thessaloniki
Greek

 

16. Chrysi DRETAKI
1955
Heraklion
Greek

17. Eleni EFTHYMIOU
1951
Chrysovitsa, Ioannina
Greek

18. Eleni EXARCHOU
1952
Athens
Greek

19. Gera GABISONIA
1961
N. Kallikratia
Greek

 

20. Anthoula GAMVRELA
1954
Kozani
Greek

21. Sevasti GARDIKOU
1961
Ioannina
Greek

22. Argyro GENTZOGLOU
1956
Podochori, Kavala
Greek

23. Maria GEORGEDAKI
1956
Alikianos, Dimos Platanias
Greek

 

24. Maria GEORGOPOULOU
1959
Krestena, Ilias
Greek

25. Chrysanthi GEROMOSCHOU
1962
Thessaloniki
Greek

26. Georgia GIANNATSELI
1965
Tripoli
Greek

27. Stella GIDAKOU
1949
Zakynthos
Greek

 

28. Triantafyllia GIOROUKIDOU
1959
Orestiada
Greek

29. Olymbia GIOVANI
1960
Palaio Faliro
Greek

30. Vagelis GIOVANIS
1961
Thessaloniki
Greek

31. Aglaia GOUNARI
1952
Podochori, Kavala
Greek

 

32. Maria GRAVALA
1963
Thessaloniki
Greek

33. Sofia GRIGORIADOU
1957
Kyrgia, Drama
Greek

34. Zambia GRIGORIOU-THEMELI
1957
Heraklion
Greek

35. Maria GROPA-ALEKOU
1950
Athens
Greek

 

36. Chariklia KALFA
1948
Drama
Greek

37. Niki KAMBOLI
1961
Ano Liosia
Greek

38. Anetta KANELLOPOULOU
1953
Demenika, Patras
Greek

39. Styliani KARAGIANNI
1951
Xirolivado, Amfilochia
Greek

 

40. Aikaterini KARAKOSTA
1957
Palamas, Karditsa
Greek

41. Areti KARAMETSI
1949
Agios Dimitrios
Greek

42. Evagelia KARAMINTZIOU
1948
Palamas, Karditsa
Greek

43. Kalliopi KARAMITSIOU
1972
Thessaloniki
Greek

 

44. Antonia KARAPROIMOU
1953
Eleftheroupoli, Kavala
Greek

45. Galatia KARATSOMBANI
1962
Kavala
Greek

46. Eleftheria KARGAKI
1954
Gazi, Heraklion
Greek

47. Vasiliki KARIKA
1959
Thessaloniki
Greek

 

48. Maria KARNAVA
1959
Ioannina
Greek

49. Paraskevi KASORI
1961
Xylokastro
Greek

50. Paraskevi KATSIOULI
1956
Larissa
Greek

51. Ermioni VAMVOUKAKI
1945
Gazi, Heraklion
Greek

 

52. Eleni VARI
1952
Thessaloniki
Greek

53. Georgios VARIS
1975
Thessaloniki
Greek

54. Styliani VELIVASAKI
1957
Gazi, Heraklion
Greek

55. Chrysanou VERGIDOU
1956
Thessaloniki
Greek

 

56. Eleni VLACHOPOULOU-MALATHRA
1950
Thessaloniki
Greek

57. Eleni VLACHOU
1965
Chalkidiki
Greek

58. Georgia ZOUPI
1955
Nea Kallikrateia
Greek

The applicants, who worked as cleaners in public schools, had been employed by the Greek State over the course of several years under successive project-based contracts. After having been hired in December 2006 and January 2007 under permanent employment contracts, the applicants instituted legal proceedings seeking (a) recognition of their years of service under project-based contracts as prior experience for the purpose of determining their salary grade; and (b) payment of the difference between the salary and allowances paid to employees on permanent contracts and those they had been paid under project-based contracts. In that regard, they relied on clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC, pursuant to which fixed‑term workers are not to be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent workers solely because they have a fixed‑term contract or relation unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds. The Athens one‑member First Instance Court dismissed the applicants’ action by decision no. 170/2011, which was overturned by decision no. 6585/2014 of the Athens Court of Appeal. The Greek State and the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the appellate court’s decision. By a memorandum dated 24 October 2017 addressed to the Court of Cassation, the applicants requested that a preliminary ruling be sought from the CJEU in the event of doubts as to whether clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC allowed for a difference in salary treatment on the sole basis that a contract was classified as a project-based contract rather than an employment contract. The Court of Cassation, endorsing the reasoning of the plenary Court of Cassation in decision no. 16/2017 on the same legal matter, quashed in part the appellate court’s decision by its decision no. 379/2018. Without making any reference to the applicants’ request for a preliminary ruling, it held that the two categories of employees were not comparable. It found that the employees hired under project-based contracts or fixed-term contracts had been recruited outside of the relevant legal procedures, that is to say, following a competitive examination or selection by an independent authority. Moreover, those employees were aware that they would be fulfilling ongoing and permanent needs, regardless of the terms stated in their individual contracts. In the domestic court’s view, this constituted objective grounds within the meaning of Article 4 of Presidential Decree no. 164/2004 (transposing the relevant clause of the Directive) which justified the difference in salary treatment.

Decision no. 379/2018, delivered on 20 February 2018 and finalised on 27 February 2018

6.

43983/19

1. Maria VLACHOPOULOU
1970
Athens
Greek

 

2. Dimitrios CHATZOUDIS
1963
Athens
Greek

3. Kleoniki DEMIRI
1973
Athens
Greek

4. Panagiotis DIMAS
1967
Nea Smyrni
Greek

5. Michail DIMITRAKAKOS
1967
Nea Smyrni
Greek

 

6. Anna FILANDRIANOU
1967
Nea Makri
Greek

7. Irini FOTINAKI
1972
Rafina
Greek

8. Stavroula GIANNAKOPOULOU
1972
Athens
Greek

9. Georgios KANARIS
1979
Bonn
Greek

 

10. Panagiotis KARIOTIS
1967
Metamorfosi
Greek

11. Alexia-Mina KONTOGEORGIOU
1975
Freising, Germany
Greek

12. Sofia LEKATSA
1972
Athens
Greek

13. Konstantina MANTZARI
1974
Patras
Greek

 

14. Georgios MATTHEAKAKIS
1973
Glyfada
Greek

15. Konstantinos MAVROGENNIS
1972
Athens
Greek

16. Elli MOUCHTARI
1968
Nea Smyrni
Greek

17. Nikolaos PENEZIS
1977
Glyfada
Greek

 

18. Arkadios RAKOPOULOS
1973
Voula
Greek

19. Ilia RODE
1966
Piraeus
Greek

20. Antonios SIGALAS
1969
Zografou
Greek

21. Maria-Symela TANAGIA
1977
Melissia
Greek

 

22. Kyriaki TROCHANI
1972
Agia Paraskevi
Greek

23. Antonia TZITZIKA
1974
Athens
Greek

24. Maria ZAVITSA
1974
Athens
Greek

25. Panagiotis ZAVITSAS
1971
Athens
Greek

The applicants had been employed as members of the choir of ERT SA, the Greek public broadcasting corporation, over the course of several years under successive project‑based contracts. After having been hired in November 2006 under permanent employment contracts, the applicants instituted legal proceedings against ERT SA seeking payment of the difference between the salary and allowances paid to employees on permanent contracts and those they had been paid while working under project-based contracts. In that regard, they relied on clause 4 of Council Directive 1999/70/EC, pursuant to which fixed‑term workers are not to be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable permanent workers solely because they have a fixed‑term contract or relation unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds, and, in the alternative, the provisions on unjustified enrichment. The Athens one‑member First Instance Court dismissed the applicants’ action by decision no. 2115/2009. Following an appeal lodged by the applicants, the Athens Court of Appeal by decision no. 4809/2011 partially upheld the appeal in so far as applicant no. 15, Mr K. Mavrogennis, was concerned and dismissed it as to the remainder. That decision was quashed by decisions nos. 788/2013 and 789/2013 of the Court of Cassation, which remitted the case to the appellate court for fresh examination. By decision no. 4659/2015, the Athens Court of Appeal held that the Greek State could continue the proceedings following ERT SA’s closure. The appellate court upheld the applicants’ appeal. Following appeals on points of law lodged by both the applicants and the Greek State, the Court of Cassation delivered decision no. 1670/2018 which became final on 19 February 2019. By a memorandum dated 23 March 2018, the applicants requested that a preliminary ruling be sought from the CJEU as to whether clause 4 of Directive 1999/70/EC allowed for (a) a difference in salary treatment on the sole basis that a contract was classified as a project-based contract rather than an employment contract; and (b) a difference in salary treatment on the basis that the employees were aware that they would be fulfilling the ongoing and permanent needs of the employer. The Court of Cassation, endorsing the reasoning of the plenary Court of Cassation in decision no. 16/2017 on the same legal matter, partially quashed the appellate court’s decision. Without making any reference to the applicants’ request for a preliminary ruling, it held that the two categories of employees were not comparable. It found that the employees hired under project-based contracts or fixed-term contracts had been recruited outside of the relevant legal procedures, that is to say, following a competitive examination or selection by an independent authority. Moreover, those employees were aware that they would be fulfilling ongoing and permanent needs, regardless of the terms stated in their individual contracts. In the domestic court’s view, this constituted objective grounds within the meaning of Article 4 of Presidential Decree no. 164/2004 (transposing the relevant clause of the Directive) which justified the difference in salary treatment.

Decision no. 1670/2018, delivered on 13 December 2018 and finalised on 19 February 2019