Introduction
On 24 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) delivered its judgment in Case C-369/25, LW v Trenitalia SpA and Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS). The case arose from a request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Tribunale di Napoli, an Italian court, and concerns the interpretation of Council Directive 91/533/EEC on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship.
The judgment addresses two central questions: the scope of Article 8(1) of Directive 91/533/EEC, which governs the defence of rights by employees, and the extent of the right conferred by Article 3 of the same directive, which entitles employees to receive a written document containing information on the essential elements of their contract or employment relationship. This ruling is significant for the practical enforcement of employee information rights across the European Union.
Legal framework: Directive 91/533/EEC and its key provisions
Directive 91/533/EEC establishes a foundational obligation in EU social policy: employers must inform their employees, in writing, of the conditions applicable to their contract or employment relationship. This obligation is designed to ensure transparency and legal certainty for workers, who are often in a weaker bargaining position relative to their employers.
Article 3 of the directive is the substantive core of this framework. It grants employees the right to receive a document — such as a written contract, a letter of engagement, or one or more other written documents — containing information on the essential elements of the employment relationship. These essential elements are intended to give the employee a clear picture of the nature and terms of their engagement.
Article 8(1) of the directive addresses the procedural dimension: the defence of rights. It sets out the mechanisms through which employees may seek to enforce the rights that the directive confers upon them. The precise scope of this provision was a central matter before the Court in the present case, as referred by the Tribunale di Napoli.
Background to the preliminary ruling
The case was brought before the Tribunale di Napoli, which referred questions to the Court of Justice under the preliminary ruling procedure. The parties to the main proceedings are identified as LW, on one side, and Trenitalia SpA and the Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) on the other. Trenitalia SpA is an Italian rail transport operator, and INPS is the Italian national social security institution.
The referral by the national court reflects a situation in which the interpretation of EU law — specifically the scope of the employee's right to information and the corresponding mechanisms for defending that right — was not sufficiently clear to allow the national court to resolve the dispute without guidance from the Court of Justice. The preliminary ruling procedure, as used here, is the established mechanism by which national courts seek authoritative interpretation of EU law from the Court of Justice.
The Court's analysis of Article 8(1): scope of the defence of rights
A central issue in the judgment concerns the proper interpretation of Article 8(1) of Directive 91/533/EEC, which relates to the defence of rights available to employees under the directive. The Court was asked to clarify the scope of this provision — in particular, what it encompasses in terms of the protection afforded to employees who seek to enforce the rights conferred by the directive.
The Court's analysis in this regard is grounded in the text and purpose of the directive. Directive 91/533/EEC is a social policy instrument, and its provisions must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the objective of protecting employees. The defence-of-rights provision in Article 8(1) is therefore to be understood in light of the need to ensure that the rights granted by the directive are not merely theoretical but are capable of effective enforcement by employees in practice.
By addressing the scope of Article 8(1), the judgment contributes to clarifying the procedural guarantees available to employees who allege that their employer has failed to comply with the information obligations imposed by the directive. This is an important aspect of the directive's effectiveness, since substantive rights are of limited value if the means to enforce them are unclear or restricted.
The right to receive essential information under Article 3
The judgment also engages with Article 3 of Directive 91/533/EEC, which establishes the employee's right to receive a document containing information on the essential elements of the contract or employment relationship. This provision is the substantive heart of the directive's information obligation.
The Court's consideration of Article 3 in the context of this case underlines the importance of the written information requirement as a means of protecting employees. By ensuring that employees receive clear, written documentation of the essential terms of their employment, the directive aims to prevent disputes arising from uncertainty or misunderstanding about the nature of the employment relationship.
The interplay between Article 3 and Article 8(1) is significant: the right to information under Article 3 is only meaningful if employees have effective recourse when that right is not respected. The judgment, by addressing both provisions together, reinforces the coherence of the directive's protective framework.
Significance for EU social policy and national courts
The ruling in Case C-369/25 is of broader significance for the application of EU social policy law in member states. Directive 91/533/EEC has been in force for several decades and has been supplemented by more recent EU legislation on transparent and predictable working conditions. Nevertheless, questions of interpretation continue to arise before national courts, as illustrated by the referral from the Tribunale di Napoli.
For national courts across the EU, the judgment provides authoritative guidance on how to interpret and apply the defence-of-rights provision in Article 8(1) and the information right in Article 3. This guidance is binding on national courts when they apply EU law, and it contributes to the uniform application of the directive throughout the member states.
The involvement of INPS as a party in the main proceedings also highlights the potential intersection between employment law and social security law in disputes of this nature, reflecting the complexity of the legal relationships that can arise in the context of employment and social protection.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2026 in Case C-369/25, LW v Trenitalia SpA and INPS, provides important clarification on the scope of the employer's obligation to inform employees under Directive 91/533/EEC. By interpreting Article 8(1) on the defence of rights and Article 3 on the right to receive essential information, the Court reinforces the protective purpose of the directive and ensures that employees have effective means to enforce the rights it confers.
The preliminary ruling procedure, as employed by the Tribunale di Napoli in this case, demonstrates the ongoing role of the Court of Justice in ensuring the consistent and effective application of EU social policy law across member states. Employers, employees, and national courts should take note of the guidance provided by this judgment when addressing questions of compliance with information obligations in employment relationships governed by EU law.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications