PUBLIC LAW
The recent Judgment 687/2025, dated February 25, from the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Supreme Court, represents a highly significant ruling in the field of public employment. In it, the High Court establishes that it is not permissible to recognize permanent civil servant status for interim staff through judicial means if doing so would violate the constitutional and legal principles governing access to public office.
The mentioned judgment resolves a cassation appeal filed by an interim worker who had accumulated more than 13 years in the same position without the post ever having been opened in any selection process. She requested her conversion into a permanent civil servant and, subsidiarily, compensation for abusive temporary employment, alleging violation of Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC.
The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal and reminds that access to public office is constitutionally reserved for those who pass merit-based, capacity, and equality-guaranteed selection processes. While acknowledging that there has been abusive use of temporary contracts, the Chamber concludes that automatic conversion to permanent status outside the legal access system cannot operate, as it would constitute an interpretation contra constitutionem (against the constitution).
Regarding economic compensation, the Chamber reiterates that indemnity is only due if real and concrete damages are proven, rejecting generic or punitive compensations.
This judgment consolidates national case law on the matter and clarifies the scope of protection against abuse of temporary employment in the public sector.
On one hand, it consolidates the constitutional framework: permanent civil servant status can only be obtained after passing a selection process, without exceptions outside the current legal framework.
On the other hand, it delimits the impact of European Union law. Although Directive 1999/70/EC requires States to sanction abuse in temporary hiring, it does not mandate conversion to permanent status if this conflicts with domestic law, especially constitutional law.
Finally, it highlights the importance of proving damage: not every prolonged situation of temporary employment gives rise to compensation. Concrete, assessable, and directly abuse-derived damage must be demonstrated.
In conclusion, Judgment 687/2025 rejects the possibility of recognizing permanent status without competitive examination and establishes clear jurisprudential criteria about the limits imposed by our legal system to sanction abuse of temporary employment. While it reiterates the obligation of Public Administrations to hold selection processes timely and properly, it also warns that the only way to achieve permanent civil servant status remains, in all cases, strict compliance with the legally established procedures.
