Teachers who are carers: the Court of Cassation puts the brakes on priority in transfers

The Court of Cassation (judgement no. 23386/2026) has clarified that a teacher who cares for a parent with a severe disability cannot automatically claim priority in inter-provincial transfers. The right recognised under Law 104 does not, in fact, confer absolute priority, but must be balanced against the school’s organisational needs and the rights of other teachers taking part in the transfer scheme.

The case arose from an appeal lodged by a teacher who sought to have the mobility agreement set aside, arguing that the lack of priority in inter-provincial transfers for those caring for a parent with a severe disability was unlawful. The Court of Cassation, however, has overturned the decisions of the lower courts and confirmed the validity of the contractual rules.

At the heart of the ruling lies an important clarification: Law 104 recognises the right of a worker to choose, ‘where possible’, the place of work closest to the person requiring care. It is precisely that phrase, the judges explain, which rules out this being an unconditional right. Each request must be assessed whilst also taking into account the proper functioning of the transfer system, the balance of staffing levels and the expectations of other teachers.

The Supreme Court also addresses the issue of European law, ruling out the notion that EU legislation imposes absolute priority for carers. European rules prohibit discrimination and require, where necessary, appropriate measures to enable workers to balance their professional commitments with caring for a disabled family member. However, this does not mean that a transfer to the requested location must always be guaranteed.

Of particular interest is the reference to the new mobility agreement, which now provides greater protection for children who care for a parent with a disability. According to the Court of Cassation, this development demonstrates that it is a matter of collective bargaining rather than an obligation already imposed by law.