The Court of Appeal has preliminarily affirmed the legitimacy of the internal discipline on the prohibition of conversion of fixed-term contracts in the public service, both from a constitutional point of view (because it requires compliance with Article 97 of the Constitution), and with reference to Community legislation . In this respect, the Court referred to clause 5 of the framework agreement annexed to the 1999 directive no. 297, subsequently amended and supplemented. Consequently, the judge's investigation cannot be aimed at ascertaining the violation of Legislative Decree no. 368/01, inapplicable to the matter in question; rather, it must ascertain whether the stipulation of a series of employment contracts with the appellant party has given rise, by the respondent administration, to an abuse of the instrument of fixed-term recruitment, in the same way as Directive 70/1999 EC and the framework agreement attached to it, and, therefore, constitutes an unlawful conduct, such as to give rise to the right to compensation in the worker ". In this regard, the Court begins by starting, on a general and abstract level, from the "specific needs that, in the school administration sector, fixed-term recruitment is intended to satisfy", from the variability of the staff "depending on the variation , from year to year, of the number of users of the school service ", and the" reasons for containing public spending ", noting that the correct management of the school service, of constitutional significance, requires" to avoid oversizing the staff ... personnel and unnecessary costs in times of demographic decline or decrease, for any reason, in enrollments ". Consequently, "the need to ensure the constant provision of the school service, aimed at satisfying a constitutionally guaranteed interest, makes recourse to term hiring justified and reasonable". From the foregoing, it follows that "Already these general considerations lead one to exclude the existence of an abuse in the school administration's recourse to the instrument of a fixed-term contract". Continuing its analysis, the Court notes that the individual contracts "are stipulated pursuant to a specific legislative, regulated or ministerial provision, which contains within itself the enunciation of the organizational reasons underlying the fixed-term employment" and that, therefore there is, on the part of the legislator, an "evaluation made ex ante and in a general and abstract way, referred to by relationem in each contract concluded with the individual worker [of the ...] reasons for the fixed-term hiring, aimed at guaranteeing the disbursement of a public service of constitutional significance ". And that is enough to explain "the organizational, technical and production reasons they are destined to satisfy". More in depth, then, the Court analyzes the reference legislation, distinguishing the three types of substitution pursuant to art. 4 ln 124/99: those on the staff by right are attributed “when it is not possible to provide the provincial staff with permanent staff or through the use of surplus staff, if they have not been assigned to any role in the role. As a rule, these are places in disadvantaged or in any case unsatisfactory locations, for which there are no applications for assignment by permanent staff. The uncovering of these posts is not foreseeable, and occurs only after the completion of the procedures for transfer, provisional assignment, use of supernumerary personnel and release on the dock; only then, having verified that they have been left without a holder, can those posts be filled - pending the completion of the competition procedures for the recruitment of permanent staff - through the assignment of temporary staff by right, also known as annual ". Those on staff are in fact related to posts that “are not technically vacant, but are in fact available. This can happen, for example, due to an unexpected increase in the school population in the single school, whose organic layout nevertheless remains unchanged, or due to the increase in the number of classes, due to contingent reasons, for example of a logistical nature ". Temporary substitutions are "conferred for any other need, such as the replacement of absent staff or the coverage of places made available, for any reason". As a consequence, it is stated that "No abuse can be hypothesized in the hypothesis of recruitment for the replacement of teachers absent due to illness or other cause, with the right to retain the post, nor in those of temporary staff on de facto staff, since the needs that they they satisfy are effectively contingent and unpredictable, and such as to exclude, in themselves, abusive conduct. The substitutes on staff by law remain: it must therefore be ascertained whether the repeated assignment of this type of assignment to the same person could constitute an abuse, in the sense in which this term is used by the European legislation on fixed-term contracts " . In this respect, the Court found that both the directive and the framework agreement provide that "the use of fixed-term contracts based on objective reasons is a way of preventing abuses" and leave the identification of suitable and adequate forms and means to achieve the purpose: the prevention of "abuses deriving from the use of a succession of fixed-term contracts", identifying, among others, the "objective reasons for the justification of the renewal of fixed-term contracts" . This notion of objective reason has been interpreted by the CJEU and by national jurisprudence according to principles that the Court expressly refers to "in the sense that it refers to precise and concrete circumstances characterizing a specific activity and, therefore, such as to justify in this particular context the use of subsequent fixed-term employment contracts ... these circumstances may result in particular from the particular nature of the tasks for the performance of which such contracts were concluded and the characteristics inherent to the latter, or, possibly, from the pursuit of a legitimate aim of sodal politics ". In any case, "the general principle5 affirmed by the directive in question - for which the fixed-term contract is in any case an exception to the general rule of the permanent contract - does not necessarily postulate the need for objective reasons that justify precarious employment , but the need for the internal regulations of the individual Member States to provide specific conditions for the conclusion of the fixed-term contract. " Starting from these systematic, normative and jurisprudential premises, the Court affirms that "in the provision of substitutes from the school administration it does not seem possible to identify any abuse". In fact, "each assignment is independent from the previous ones, of which it does not constitute either a continuation or an extension, and often concerns the coverage of places located in different locations", then "the school administration [...] is obliged to abide by the rankings" , and, moreover, “the alternate called to fill the post is not <>, but is <> according to predetermined criteria, which the administration is required to respect. Basically, once the worker to be hired has been identified in the ranking, the assignment of the assignment constitutes a real obligation for the administration ". This means that "the school administration cannot exempt itself from identifying, to meet the replacement needs described, those subjects who have accumulated the highest score and who therefore occupy the best positions in the ranking, namely those who have been hired several times with a fixed-term contract ". In conclusion, and to dispel any doubts regarding the non-existence of the abuse (rectius to the existence of the objective reasons justifying the term relationship, identified in the peculiarity of the sector), the Court also values the reasoning followed by other judges on the merits, reporting what was ruled by the Court of Appeal of Florence in relation to the particular characteristics of the school employment relationship: "it is the integral system of recruiting teachers [and non-teaching staff, nd3.] to be removed from the general discipline dictated by the civil code, by special labor regulations in the company and from the same art. 36 TU by reason of its intrinsic specialty .... to the point that, on the ontological level, it can undoubtedly be affirmed that the recruitments in the public school in a precarious regime (or premium / o) are not term hires in a technical sense, but they are configured as a special and progressive "recruitment" system, destined to physiologically end with being placed "in the role" and the reconstruction of the career ". Avv. Ugo Adorno Reasons for the sentence of the Court of Appeal of Perugia, hearing of 1 December 2010