If you need expert advice on issues of temporality abuse in the public sector, contact Fernanda Vargas via WhatsApp here or book an appointment on Calendly here.

What is the Abuse of Temporality in the Public Sector and Why Is It Back in the Spotlight in 2026?

The abuse of temporary contracts in the public sector refers to the systematic use of temporary employment arrangements to fill positions without transitioning to permanent roles. This practice not only creates job insecurity but also undermines fairness for employees. In 2026, the issue has received renewed attention due to recent judicial decisions and growing public concern. Recent statistics indicate that over 30% of public sector employees are on temporary contracts, with regions and sectors such as healthcare facing even higher rates.

The Obadal Judgment of the CJEU (C-418/24, April 14, 2026): What Was Deemed Unconstitutional under EU Law

The Obadal judgment issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union on April 14, 2026, marked a turning point in Spanish labor law. The ruling declared that clause 5 of the Framework Agreement appended to Directive 1999/70/EC is incompatible with national law, as it permits the abusive chaining of temporary contracts through the so‐called “non-fixed permanent contract.” The decision explicitly criticizes the Spanish measures—including the inadequate fixed-term conversion and capped indemnifications—for perpetuating job insecurity, echoing the Rossato criteria which require an automatic and unconditional conversion to avoid compensation obligations.

Why the CJEU Rejected the Entire Set of Spanish Measures: Non-Fixed Permanent, Capped Indemnification, and Stabilization Processes

The CJEU rejected the comprehensive approach taken by Spain, which included the creation of a “non-fixed permanent contract,” a capped indemnity system (initially set at 20 days’ salary per year with a double cap of 12 monthly payments), and stabilization processes under Law 20/2021. Even attempts to increase the indemnification to 33 days with a cap of 24 monthly salaries were dismissed. The stabilization process, open to candidates who had not suffered contractual abuse, fails to serve as an adequate deterrent against the systemic abuse of temporary contracts.

The Supreme Court’s Response: STS 475/2026, May 11, 2026, Full Chamber of the Social Chamber

In response to the CJEU ruling, the Spanish Supreme Court issued ruling STS 475/2026 on May 11, 2026, clarifying that abuse of temporal contracts does not automatically convert a temporary position into a permanent post. Such automatic conversion would contravene constitutional principles and equal access to public employment. Instead, when abuse is evident, remedies include an indemnity aligned with CJEU criteria and the initiation of a penal procedure by the Labor Inspectorate for clear infractions as set forth in articles 7.2 and 40.1 of the corresponding regulations.

When Permanence (Fijeza) Applies: The Exception for Passing a Competitive Exam Without Obtaining a Position

An important exception recognized by the recent case law is that workers who have successfully passed a competitive exam but did not secure a permanent position due to a lack of vacancies can claim permanence. This is a crucial pathway for those who have proven their merit in stabilizing selection processes yet continue to be employed on temporary contracts. Maintaining well-organized documentation of your participation and results in these processes is vital to support your claim for permanent status.

The Nuance from July 2026: Passing the Competitive Exam During the Period of Abuse and Before Filing a Claim

Further judgments issued between July 7 and July 14, 2026, have clarified that permanence can also be claimed when the competitive exam is passed during the period of abusive temporary employment and before any legal claim is made. This nuance underscores the critical importance of timing and proper documentation: the period during which the exam is passed can decisively influence the outcome of a claim.

If Permanence Is Not Granted, What Remedies Remain? Indemnification as per CJEU and Intervention by the Labor Inspectorate

When the right to permanence is not recognized, affected workers have alternative remedies. These include indemnification calculated in line with CJEU benchmarks as well as the filing of a complaint with the Labor Inspectorate to trigger disciplinary procedures against the offending administration. Such measures, while corrective, aim to compensate for the precarious situation created by abusive temporary contracts but clearly fall short of the stability offered by permanent positions.

How to Identify If Your Situation Qualifies: Signs of Abusive Chaining and Essential Documentation

Determining whether your employment situation constitutes abusive chaining involves recognizing several red flags: continuous temporary contracts without justified breaks, absence of valid competitive processes, and irregularities in job assignment criteria. It is crucial to gather all relevant documentation—from initial employment offers and contract renewals to results from competitive processes—in order to substantiate your claim effectively.

Deadlines, Judicial Routes, and Common Mistakes When Filing a Claim

Understanding the applicable deadlines is key when filing a claim for conversion to permanent employment or seeking indemnification. Many employees mistakenly miss these deadlines or submit incomplete documentation, which may jeopardize their case. Expert legal guidance is therefore essential to navigate the judicial process effectively and avoid common pitfalls.

Foreign Workers in Public Administrations: Article 57.4 of TREBEP and the Most Affected Sectors

Article 57.4 of the Revised Basic Statute of Public Employees (TREBEP) guarantees that legally residing foreign workers have equal access to public administration positions. However, in practice, migrants working in sectors such as cleaning, caregiving, social services, and public health are disproportionately affected by the abusive chaining of temporary contracts. This situation calls for a thorough review of hiring practices to ensure that discrimination is avoided and equal rights are protected.

What Public Administrations, Public Sector Entities, and HR Teams Must Review Now

In light of the Obadal judgment and subsequent Supreme Court directives, public administrations and human resources departments should urgently review their hiring practices. This includes identifying cases of abusive temporary contracting and updating internal policies to ensure compliance with both national and EU standards. Transparency in the selection processes and corrective measures are indispensable for fostering a fair and stable employment environment.

What Has Been Approved, What Is Jurisprudence, and What Is Still Awaiting Legal Reform

At present, the legal framework comprises approved norms as well as key interpretations set forth by the CJEU and the Supreme Court. The controversial figure of the “non-fixed permanent contract” remains in use, despite being critically challenged, and awaits comprehensive legal reform. It is essential to distinguish between current law, established case law, and legislative proposals still under debate in the political arena.

Frequently Asked Questions

Here are some of the most common questions regarding the abuse of temporality:

• Who can claim permanence? Employees who have successfully passed a competitive exam and can prove that they were subsequently subjected to abusive temporary contracting.
• How is the indemnification calculated? It is based on the criteria established by the CJEU, though the current capped system is widely regarded as insufficient.
• What critical documents should be preserved? It is essential to retain all documents related to employment offers, contract renewals, and the outcomes of any competitive selection processes.
• What distinguishes a fixed contract from a non-fixed permanent one? A fixed contract guarantees job stability, whereas a non-fixed permanent contract continues to perpetuate a state of temporary precariousness.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The issue of temporal abuse in the public sector remains a contentious and evolving matter in 2026, highlighted by recent rulings from both the CJEU and the Supreme Court. While the non-fixed permanent contract persists under current law, new judicial interpretations call for a significant reassessment of hiring practices. Should you suspect you are affected or need clarity on your rights, it is highly advisable to seek professional legal guidance. Fernanda Vargas stands ready to assist you in navigating these complexities and defending your rights.

For more information or to resolve any questions you may have, contact Fernanda Vargas via WhatsApp here or book an appointment on Calendly here.