- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-196/23, Plamaro: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña – Spain) – CL and Others v DB, acting in the capacity of sole successor to FC, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 98/59/EC – Collective redundancies – Article 1(1)(a) and Article 2 – Obligation to inform and consult workers’ representatives – Scope – Termination of employment contracts on the ground of the employer’s retirement – Articles 27 and 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CA0196
62023CA0196
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C series
—
C/2024/5201
(Case C-196/23,
Plamaro)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 98/59/EC - Collective redundancies - Article 1(1)(a) and Article 2 - Obligation to inform and consult workers’ representatives - Scope - Termination of employment contracts on the ground of the employer’s retirement - Articles 27 and 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
(C/2024/5201)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: CL, GO, GN, VO, TI, HZ, DN, DL
Defendants: DB, acting in the capacity of sole successor to FC, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 1(1) and Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, read together,
must be interpreted as precluding a national law pursuant to which the termination of the employment contracts of a number of workers greater than that provided for in that Article 1(1), as a result of the retirement of the employer, is not classified as a ‘collective redundancy’ and does not give rise to the obligation to inform and consult the workers’ representatives provided for in that Article 2.
EU law must be interpreted as not requiring a national court, hearing proceedings between individuals, to disapply a national law, such as that referred to in point 1 of the present operative part, in the event that it is contrary to the provisions of Article 1(1) and Article 2 of Directive 98/59.
—
Language of the case: Spanish
* * *
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5201/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—