(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

Social policy – Approximation of laws – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59 – Definition of collective redundancy – Termination of contract of employment without the consent of the worker dependent on external circumstances not contingent on the employer’s will – Included

(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)

In Case C-55/02, ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 22 February 2002,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Sack and M. França, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

Portuguese Republic, represented by L. Fernandes and F. Ribeiro Lopes, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges,

Advocate General: A. Tizzano, Registrar: R. Grass,

having regard to the written procedure,

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

gives the following

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1), as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 (OJ 2014 L 124, p. 1) (‘Directive 2011/92’).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Waltham Abbey Residents Association and, on the other hand, An Bord Pleanála (Planning Board, Ireland; ‘the Board’), Ireland and the Attorney General (Ireland), concerning authorisation granted by the Board for a strategic residential housing development.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2011/92

Recitals 7 to 9 of Directive 2011/92 state:

‘(7) Development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. …

(8) Projects belonging to certain types have significant effects on the environment and those projects should, as a rule, be subject to a systematic assessment.

(9) Projects of other types may not have significant effects on the environment in every case and those projects should be assessed where the Member States consider that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.’

Article 2(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment. Those projects are defined in Article 4.’

Under Article 3(1) of that directive:

‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors:

…

(b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under [Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193) (“Directive 92/43”)] and Directive 2009/147/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7)];

…’

Article 4 of Directive 2011/92 provides:

‘1. Subject to Article 2(4), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

(a) a case-by-case examination;

(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State.

Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in points (a) and (b).

Where a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account. Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under paragraphs 4 and 5 or an environmental impact assessment, and/or thresholds or criteria to determine when projects shall in any case be made subject to an environmental impact assessment without undergoing a determination set out under paragraphs 4 and 5.

Where Member States decide to require a determination for projects listed in Annex II, the developer shall provide information on the characteristics of the project and its likely significant effects on the environment. The detailed list of information to be provided is specified in Annex IIA. The developer shall take into account, where relevant, the available results of other relevant assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The developer may also provide a description of any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

The competent authority shall make its determination, on the basis of the information provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 4 taking into account, where relevant, the results of preliminary verifications or assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The determination shall made available to the public and:

(a) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is required, state the main reasons for requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III; or

(b) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is not required, state the main reasons for not requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III, and, where proposed by the developer, state any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

Member States shall ensure that the competent authority makes its determination as soon as possible and within a period of time not exceeding 90 days from the date on which the developer has submitted all the information required pursuant to paragraph 4. In exceptional cases, for instance relating to the nature, complexity, location or size of the project, the competent authority may extend that deadline to make its determination; in that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when its determination is expected.’

Annex II.A of that directive contains the list of ‘information to be provided by the developer on the projects listed in Annex II’. That list reads as follows:

‘1. A description of the project, including in particular:

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and, where relevant, of demolition works;

(b) a description of the location of the project, with particular regard to the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected.

3. A description of any likely significant effects, to the extent of the information available on such effects, of the project on the environment resulting from:

(a) the expected residues and emissions and the production of waste, where relevant;

(b) the use of natural resources, in particular soil, land, water and biodiversity.

Directive 2014/52

Recitals 11 and 29 of Directive 2014/52 state:

‘(11) The measures taken to avoid, prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under [Directive 92/43] and Directive 2009/147 …, should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity, in accordance with the [European] Union’s commitments in the context of the [United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992,] and the objectives and actions of the Union Biodiversity Strategy up to 2020 laid down in the [Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions] of 3 May 2011 entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ [(COM(2011) 244 final)]

…

(29) When determining whether significant effects on the environment are likely to be caused by a project, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and should take into account information that could be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening determination, in particular where no environmental impact assessment is required. Moreover, taking into account unsolicited comments that might have been received from other sources, such as members of the public or public authorities, even though no formal consultation is required at the screening stage, constitutes good administrative practice.’

Directive 92/43

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 provides:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.’

Article 12(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range, prohibiting:

(a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;

(b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;

(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;

(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.’

Point (a) of Annex IV to that directive mentions ‘all species’ of bats belonging to the suborder of ‘microchiroptera’.

Irish law

Article 53 of the Portuguese Constitution provides:

‘Workers shall be guaranteed security of employment. Dismissals without good cause or for political or ideological reasons shall be prohibited.’

The Directive was transposed into the Portuguese legal order by Decree-Law No 64-A/89 of 27 February 1989 concerning the legal rules governing the termination of individual contracts of employment and the conclusion and expiry of fixed-term contracts of employment (Diário da República I, Series I, No 48, of 27 February 1989, ‘the LCCL’). Law No 32/99 of 18 May 1999 (Diário da República I, Series I-A, No 115, of 18 May 1999) amended the rules on collective redundancies, laid down in the legal rules governing the termination of individual contracts of employment and the conclusion of fixed-term contracts of employment, approved by that decree-law.

Article 3 of the LCCL, headed ‘Forms of termination of contracts of employment’, forms part of Chapter I of that law, itself headed ‘General principles’. It provides:

‘(1) Dismissals without just cause shall be prohibited.

(2) A contract of employment may be terminated by:

(a) expiry;

(b) rescission by agreement of the parties;

(c) dismissal decided on by the employer;

(d) cancellation, with or without cause, on the employee’s initiative;

(e) cancellation by either party during the probationary period;

(f) job losses for structural, technological or cyclical reasons’.

Article 4 of the LCCL, headed ‘Causes of expiry’, forms part of Chapter II of that law, which is headed ‘Expiry of the contract of employment’. It provides:

‘Contracts of employment shall expire in accordance with the general provisions of law, in particular:

…

(b) Where, after the contract has been concluded, it becomes absolutely and definitively impossible for the worker to perform his duties or for the employer to benefit from them’.

Article 6 of the LCCL, concerning the death of an individual employer or the winding-up of a corporate employer, also forming part of Chapter II of that law, provides:

‘(1) The death of an individual employer shall cause the contract of employment to expire, save where the deceased’s heirs continue the activity for which the worker was engaged or where the undertaking is transferred, in which case Article 37 of the legal rules on individual contracts of employment, approved by Decree-Law No 49408 of 24 November 1969, shall apply.

(2) Where the contract expires by virtue of the provisions of the previous paragraph, the worker shall be entitled to compensation corresponding to one month’s pay for each year or part of a year of service, paid out of the undertaking’s assets.

(3) The winding-up of an employer which is a collective body, where the establishment is not to be transferred, shall cause the contracts of employment to expire in accordance with the terms provided for in the previous paragraphs.’

Chapter V of the LCCL deals with the termination of contracts of employment on the basis of job losses for objective structural, technological or cyclical reasons relating to the undertaking. This chapter contains two sections, the first headed ‘Collective redundancy’ and the second ‘Termination of the contract of employment for job losses not included in collective redundancy’.

Article 16 of the LCCL, headed ‘Definition’, which is the first article in Section I, provides:

‘“Collective redundancies” means the termination, on the employer’s initiative, of individual contracts of employment, affecting simultaneously or in succession, at least two workers in a period of three months where the undertaking employs up to 50 persons or at least five workers where the undertaking employs more than 50 persons, provided that such termination is based on the definitive closure of the undertaking, of one or more departments or on staff reductions effected for structural, technological or cyclical reasons.’

In addition, Section I of Chapter V of the LCCL provides, in particular, for the communications and consultations to be effected by the employer, in Articles 17 and 18, the action to be taken by the competent national authority, in Article 19, workers’ rights, in Article 23, and the consequences of unlawful redundancies, in Article 24.

Section II of Chapter V of the LCCL concerns, inter alia, the reasons for job losses, in Article 26, the conditions for termination of the contract of employment, in Article 27, the communications to be made by the employer, in Article 28, the procedure to be followed, in Article 29, termination of the contract of employment, in Article 30, and workers’ rights, in Article 32.

In accordance with Article 27(1)(b) and (c) of the LCCL, termination of the contract of employment is subject, in particular, to the condition that it should be impossible in practice to maintain the employment relationship and that there should exist no fixed-term contracts for duties corresponding to those of the job lost.

In Chapter VIII of the LCCL, headed ‘Special cases of termination of the contract of employment’, Article 56, concerning situations where the employer is placed in compulsory liquidation or is insolvent, provides:

‘(1) A judicial declaration that the employer is insolvent or placed in compulsory liquidation shall not terminate the contracts of employment, since the administrator of the assets of the undertaking in liquidation must continue to satisfy in full the obligations under those contracts for workers, until such time as the establishment is definitively closed.

(2) Nevertheless, before the definitive closure of the establishment, the administrator may cancel the contracts of employment of those employees whose services are not essential to the running of the undertaking, in accordance with the rules set out in Articles 16 to 25.’

Article 172 of the Portuguese Code of Special Procedures in judicial settlements and compulsory liquidation, approved by Decree-Law No 132/93 of 23 April 1993 (Diário da República I, Series I-A, No 95, of 23 April 1993), and amended by Decree-Law No 315/98 of 20 October 1998 (Diário da República I, Series I-A, No 242, of 20 October 1998), provides:

‘The employees of the undertaking in compulsory liquidation shall be covered, with regard to the continuation of their contract after the declaration of compulsory liquidation, by the general rules on termination of the contract of employment, without prejudice to the transfer of contracts under the sale of industrial and commercial establishments.’

The pre-litigation procedure

Taking the view that the LCCL was in part incompatible with the provisions of the Directive, the Commission initiated the infringement procedure. Having given the Portuguese Republic formal notice to submit its observations, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to that Member State on 29 December 2000 requesting it to take the measures necessary to comply therewith within a period of two months from the date of its notification.

Considering that the information supplied by the Portuguese authorities showed that the infringement indicated in the reasoned opinion still subsisted, the Commission decided to bring the present action.

Concerning the action

The Commission takes the view that the concept of collective redundancies in Portuguese law does not cover all the cases of collective redundancies mentioned in the Directive. As a result, the provisions of Portuguese law are more restricted in ambit than those of the Directive.

The Commission states that the definition of ‘collective redundancies’, set out in Article 16 of the LCCL, does not, for example, include the case of redundancies made by an employer for reasons not related to the individual workers in cases of a declaration of compulsory liquidation, liquidation procedures similar to those just mentioned, compulsory purchase, fire or other case of force majeure, or in the case of termination of an undertaking’s activity following the death of the trader.

The Portuguese Government maintains that the Commission’s action is without foundation, save for the part concerning the transfer of contracts of employment, in the terminal stage of realising the assets in a compulsory liquidation procedure, as a result of the definitive closure of establishments that have not been sold in their entirety. In fact, the situations mentioned by the Commission, in particular circumstances, are not in its view covered by the definition of collective redundancy provided in the Directive and, in other cases, are governed by the rules on collective redundancy established by the Portuguese legislation.

The definition of ‘collective redundancy’ provided by the Directive

Arguments of the parties

The Portuguese Government maintains that no effort was made to define ‘redundancy’ in the Directive because most of the legal orders of the Member States adopt the common definition of a voluntary act of the employer intended to bring to an end the employment relationship and communicated to the worker.

It contends that the Directive does not provide that any termination whatsoever of a contract of employment for reasons not related to the individual worker is to be classified as ‘redundancy’.

It submits, moreover, that it is impossible to apply the entire body of rules laid down by the Directive to situations in which the expiry of contracts of employment on the definitive termination of the undertaking’s activities is not contingent on the will of the employer. That fact confirms that such situations are not classified as collective redundancies. The Directive was not intended to apply to such situations.

According to the Portuguese Government, there is a dilemma, the horns of which are the full application of the Directive and its exclusion. Since many serious obligations provided for by the Directive do not apply in certain situations where the definitive termination of the undertaking’s activities is not contingent on the employer’s will, it must be concluded that the Directive in its entirety does not apply to such situations.

The Commission acknowledges that the Directive does not define the concept of ‘redundancy’. In its view, however, the lack of a definition does not authorise the Member States to exclude from the Directive’s ambit situations such as those subject to a body of rules on the expiry of contracts of employment in Portuguese law.

According to the Commission, it is a flagrant breach of Community law for the Portuguese Government, faced with the supposed ‘dilemma’ of a choice between ‘the full application of the Directive and its exclusion’, to opt for non-application of the Directive.

It remarks that, apropos of cases of compulsory purchase, fire or other cases of force majeure, the Portuguese Government gives evidence of misunderstanding the protective rules introduced by the Directive, probably as a result of a selective reading of Sections II, ‘Information and consultation’, and III, ‘Procedure for collective redundancies’, of the Directive.

In this regard, the Commission maintains, inter alia, that it is quite consistent for the consultation of workers’ representatives to cover means of mitigating the consequences of redundancy by considering accompanying social measures aimed at redeploying or retraining workers made redundant, even if it was not possible to avoid the definitive closure of the undertaking and therefore the termination of the contracts of employment.

According to the Commission, the Portuguese Government has put forward an interpretation of the collective redundancies procedure that renders pointless the various provisions of the Directive. That is particularly so with regard to the obligation laid down in Article 3 of that directive, which requires employers to notify in writing the competent public authority of any projected collective redundancies. Both an employer whose undertaking has been destroyed by fire and the heirs of a deceased trader are in a position to perform that obligation.

Findings of the Court

Pursuant to Article 1(1)(a) of the Directive, ‘collective redundancies’ means dismissals effected by an employer for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned provided that certain conditions concerning numbers and periods of time are satisfied.

The Directive does not give an express definition of ‘redundancy’. That concept must, however, be given a uniform interpretation for the purposes of the Directive.

It follows both from the requirements of the uniform application of Community law and the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of Community law which make no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the Community; that interpretation must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the legislation in question (Case C-287/98 Linster [2000] ECR I-6917, paragraph 43, and Case C‑40/01 Ansul [2003] ECR I-2439, paragraph 26).

46In this case, Article 1(1)(a) of the Directive, unlike Article 1(1)(b) thereof which expressly provides that ‘workers’ representatives’ means the workers’ representatives provided for by the laws or practices of the Member States, does not make any express reference to the law of the Member States so far as the definition of ‘redundancy’ is concerned.

47In addition, it follows from the title of, and from the third, fourth and seventh recitals in the preamble to, the Directive that the objective pursued by the latter is to further the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies.

48By harmonising the rules applicable to collective redundancies, the Community legislature intended both to ensure comparable protection for workers’ rights in the different Member States and to harmonise the costs which such protective rules entail for Community undertakings (Case C-383/92 Commission v United Kingdom [1994] ECR I-2479, paragraph 16).

49Accordingly, the concept of ‘redundancy’, as mentioned in Article 1(1)(a) of the Directive, may not be defined by any reference to the laws of the Member States, but has instead meaning in Community law.

50The concept has to be interpreted as including any termination of contract of employment not sought by the worker, and therefore without his consent. It is not necessary that the underlying reasons should reflect the will of the employer.

51That interpretation of the concept of ‘redundancy’ for the purposes of the Directive follows from the aim pursued by the latter and from the background to the provision at issue.

52The second recital in the preamble to the Directive makes it clear that that act is designed to strengthen the protection of workers in the case of collective redundancies. According to the third and seventh recitals in the preamble to the Directive, it is chiefly the differences remaining between the provisions in force in the Member States concerning the measures apt to mitigate the consequences of collective redundancies which must form the subject-matter of a harmonisation of laws.

53The objectives referred to in the Directive would be attained only in part if the termination of a contract of employment that was not contingent on the will of the employer were to be excluded from the body of rules laid down by the Directive.

54As regards the background to the provision at issue, the ninth recital in the preamble to the Directive and the second paragraph of Article 3(1) thereof make it clear that the Directive applies, as a rule, also to collective redundancies caused by termination of the establishment’s activities as a result of a judicial decision. In that situation, the termination of contracts of employment is the result of circumstances not willed by the employer.

55In that context, it has to be added that in its original version, namely, Directive 75/129, the Directive had provided in Article 1(2)(d) that it did not apply to workers affected by the termination of an establishment’s activities where that was the result of a judicial decision. That article provided an exception to the rule laid down by Article 1(1)(a), which stated, in terms the same as those used in the equivalent provision of Directive 98/59, that for the purposes of that directive ‘collective redundancies’ means dismissals effected by an employer for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned. That exception would not have been needed had the concept of ‘redundancy’ taken the form of a willed act of the employer.

56As the Advocate General has correctly noted in points 46 and 47 of his Opinion, redundancies are to be distinguished from terminations of the contract of employment which, on the conditions set out in the last paragraph of Article 1(1) of the Directive, are assimilated to redundancies for want of the worker’s consent.

57The interpretation offered in paragraph 50 above cannot be gainsaid by arguing that full application of the Directive is, for example, impossible in some circumstances in which the definitive termination of the undertaking’s activity is not contingent upon the employer’s will. In any case, application of the Directive in its entirety is not to be excluded for those circumstances.

58In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 2(2) of the Directive, the purpose of consulting the workers’ representatives is not only to avoid collective redundancies or to reduce the number of workers affected, but also, inter alia, to mitigate the consequences of such redundancies by recourse to accompanying social measures aimed, in particular, at aid for redeploying or retraining workers made redundant. It would run counter to the spirit of the Directive to narrow the ambit of that provision by giving a restrictive interpretation of the concept of ‘redundancy’.

59Considerations of the same kind hold good so far as the obligations laid down in Article 3 of the Directive to notify the competent public authority are concerned. Those obligations, adapted where appropriate in accordance with the power granted to the Member States by the second paragraph of Article 3(1), could quite well be performed by an employer in cases where contracts of employment have to be terminated because of circumstances not contingent on his will. A contrary interpretation would deprive workers of the protection given by that provision and by Article 4 of the Directive.

60It follows from all the foregoing considerations that termination of a contract of employment cannot escape the application of the Directive just because it depends on external circumstances not contingent on the employer’s will.

Legal assessment of the Portuguese legislation

61All the situations mentioned in paragraph 32 above that the Portuguese Government has acknowledged are classified as ‘expiry of the contract’ in the Portuguese legal order fall within the ambit of the Directive, for they are covered by the definition of ‘redundancy’ for the purposes of that act.

62It matters little that in Portuguese law those situations are not classified as redundancies but as the expiry by operation of law of the contract of employment. They are in point of fact terminations of the contract of employment against the will of the worker, and are therefore redundancies for the purposes of the Directive.

63In consequence, the Portuguese Republic has not properly transposed Article 1(1)(a) of the Directive.

64The allegation relating to failure to fulfil obligations under Article 6 of the Directive is also well founded. Nothing indicates that the Portuguese Republic, even though adopting a more restrictive interpretation of ‘redundancy’ than that given in the Directive, has nevertheless taken care that there should be available to workers in all the situations of collective redundancy within the meaning of the Directive administrative and/or judicial procedures in order to enforce the obligations laid down by the Directive.

65In so far as the action concerns Article 7 of the Directive, it has to be stated that the Commission has not explained how the Portuguese Republic is supposed to have infringed that provision.

66As a result, it must be held that, by restricting the concept of collective redundancies to redundancies for structural, technological or cyclical reasons, and by failing to extend that concept to dismissals for any reason not related to the individual workers concerned, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 6 of the Directive, and the remainder of the action must be dismissed.

Costs

67Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs, if they have been applied for. Since the Commission has applied for an order for costs against the Portuguese Republic and since the latter has been largely unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear the costs.

On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby:

Declares that, by restricting the concept of collective redundancies to redundancies for structural, technological or cyclical reasons, and by failing to extend that concept to dismissals for any reason not related to the individual workers concerned, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies;

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Signatures

Language of the case: Portuguese.