- 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-300/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 12 April 2019 — UQ v Marclean Technologies, S.L.U.
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0300
62019CN0300
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 295/4
(Case C-300/19)
(2019/C 295/06)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: UQ
Defendant: Marclean Technologies, S.L.U.
Questions referred
1.Must Article 1(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC (1) of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies be interpreted as meaning that the reference period of 30 or 90 days laid down as a condition for the existence of collective redundancies must always be calculated retrospectively from the date of the individual dismissal at issue?
2.Second question: May Article 1(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies be interpreted as meaning that the reference period of 30 or 90 days laid down as a condition for the existence of collective redundancies may be calculated prospectively from the date of the individual dismissal at issue without the need for subsequent terminations to be regarded as abusive?
3.Third question: May the reference periods in Article 1(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies be interpreted in such a way as to permit account to be taken of dismissals or terminations taking place within 30 or 90 days of the dismissal at issue as falling at some point within those periods?
(1) OJ 1998, L 225, p. 16.