- 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-496/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 22 July 2022 — EI v SC Brink’s Cash Solutions SRL
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0496
62022CN0496
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
17.10.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 398/13
(Case C-496/22)
(2022/C 398/17)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: EI
Respondent: SC Brink’s Cash Solutions SRL
Questions referred
1.Do [the first subparagraph of] Article 1[(1)(b)] and Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, read in the light of recitals 2 and 6 of the preamble to that directive, preclude national legislation which allows an employer not to consult the workers affected by a collective redundancy procedure since they have neither appointed representatives nor a legal obligation to appoint them?
2.Are [the first subparagraph of] Article 1[(1)(b)] and Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, read in the light of recitals 2 and 6 of the preamble to that directive, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the circumstances described above, the employer is required to inform and consult all the employees affected by the collective redundancy procedure?
Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16, Special edition in Romanian: Chapter 05 Volume 005 P. 95).