Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 October 2004.Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic.Member States failure to fulfil obligations - Articles 1, 6 and 7 of Directive 98/59/EC - Concept of collective redundancy - Rules governing dismissals assimilated to redundancies - Incomplete transposition.Case C-55/02.

Judgment // 12/10/2004 // 2 min read
bookmark 12 citations

Case C-55/02

Commission of the European Communities

v

Portuguese Republic

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 1, 6 and 7 of Directive 98/59/EC – Definition of ‘collective redundancy’ – Rules governing dismissals assimilated to redundancies – Incomplete transposition)

Summary of the Judgment

(Council Directive 98/59, Art. 1(1)(a))

The concept of ‘redundancy’, as mentioned in Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, has meaning in Community law and may not be defined by any reference to the laws of the Member States. It has to be interpreted as including not only redundancies for structural, technological or cyclical reasons, but any termination of contract of employment not sought by the worker, and therefore without his consent. Therefore, termination of a contract of employment without the worker’s consent cannot escape the application of the directive just because it depends on external circumstances not contingent on the employer’s will. The objectives of the directive which is designed, inter alia, to strengthen the protection of workers in the case of collective redundancies would be attained only in part if such a termination of a contract of employment were to be excluded from the body of rules laid down by the directive.

(see paras 49-50, 52-53, 60, 66, operative part 1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)12 October 2004(1)

(Member State’s failure to fulfil obligations – Articles 1, 6 and 7 of Directive 98/59/EC – Concept of ‘collective redundancy’ – Rules governing dismissals assimilated to redundancies – Incomplete transposition)

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT (Second Chamber),,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 March 2004,

gives the following