Supreme Court dismissed appeal; speech therapy work is additional, contingent on school funding.

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's cassation appeal against a lower court ruling that rejected her claim for an indefinite-term employment contract. The plaintiff argued for permanent employment based on repeated needs for speech therapy services, while the school contended that such activities are additional and depend on available financial resources guaranteed by the supervising authority. The court held that because these specific needs are not obligatory and rely on discretionary funding decisions, the employment relationship remained temporary and did not justify indefinite-term status.