- 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-80/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), B. Wilson v WW Realisation 1 Ltd, in liquidation, Ethel Austin Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1)(a) — Meaning of ‘establishment’ — Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CA0080
62014CA0080
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
29.6.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 213/8
(Case C-80/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a) - Meaning of ‘establishment’ - Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant))
(2015/C 213/12)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)
Parties to the main proceedings
Claimants/Respondents: Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), B. Wilson
Defendants/Appellants: WW Realisation 1 Ltd, in liquidation, Ethel Austin Ltd, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
Operative part of the judgment
The term ‘establishment’ in Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted in the same way as the term in Article 1(1)(a)(i) of that directive.
Article 1(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that lays down an obligation to inform and consult workers in the event of the dismissal, within a period of 90 days, of at least 20 workers from a particular establishment of an undertaking, and not where the aggregate number of dismissals across all of the establishments or across some of the establishments of an undertaking over the same period reaches or exceeds the threshold of 20 workers.
* Language of the case: English.
OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.