KAVGA A OSTATNÍ proti Řecku

Přehled

Text rozhodnutí

Datum rozhodnutí

7.10.2025

Rozhodovací formace

výbor

Významnost

Číslo stížnosti / sp. zn.

41897/18

Rozhodnutí

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

Joinder of applications

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

As regards Ms Sevasti Gardikou, one of the applicants in application no. 49138/18

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.

Complaint under Article 6 of the Convention

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