- 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-134/24, Tomann : Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2024 – UR acting as liquidator of V GmbH v DF
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0134
62024CN0134
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
EN
C series
—
C/2024/2734
29.4.2024
(Case C-134/24, Tomann
(C/2024/2734)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Defendant, appellant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: UR, acting as liquidator of V GmbH
Applicant, respondent and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: DF
Questions referred
1.Must Article 4(1) of Directive 98/59/EC be interpreted as meaning that a dismissal as part of a collective redundancy subject to compulsory notification can terminate the employment relationship of an employee concerned only once the standstill period has expired?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
2.Does the expiry of the standstill period not only require a collective redundancy notification, but must it also satisfy the conditions laid down in the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 98/59?
3.Can an employer who has announced dismissals subject to compulsory notification without a (proper) collective redundancy notification give such notification at a later stage with the consequence that, after the expiry of the standstill period, the employment relationship of the employees concerned can be terminated by the dismissals previously announced?
If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative:
4.Is it compatible with Article 6 of Directive 98/59 for national law to leave it to the competent authority to determine, in a manner which is incontestable for the employee and binding on the labour courts, when the standstill period expires in a particular case, or must the employee necessarily be able to bring an action before a court for review of the accuracy of the authority’s determination?
The present case has been given a fictitious name which does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings.
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).
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2734/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—