Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation v Dervis Odemis and Others

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62008CJ0012
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2009:466
• Docket Number: C-12/08
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling
• Date: 16 July 2009

Case C-12/08

Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation

v

Dervis Odemis and Others

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 98/59/EC – Articles 2 and 6 – Procedure for informing and consulting employees in the case of collective redundancy – Employer’s obligations – Workers’ right of action – Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law)

Summary of the Judgment

1. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59 – Procedure for informing and consulting employees

(Council Directive 98/59, Arts 2 and 6)

2. Community law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – National rules for informing and consulting employees in the case of collective redundancy

(Council Directive 98/59, Arts 2 and 6)

3. Social policy – Approximation of laws – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59 – Procedure for informing and consulting employees

(Council Directive 98/59, Art. 2)

1. Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, read in conjunction with Article 2 thereof, is to be interpreted as not precluding national rules which introduce procedures intended to permit both workers’ representatives and the workers themselves as individuals to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down in that directive, but which limit the individual right of action of workers in regard to the complaints which may be raised and makes that right subject to the requirement that workers’ representatives should first have raised objections with the employer and that the worker concerned has informed the employer in advance of his intention to query whether the information and consultation procedure has been complied with.

The right to information and consultation provided for in Directive 98/59, in particular by Article 2 thereof, is intended to benefit workers as a collective group and is therefore collective in nature. The level of protection of that collective right required by Article 6 of the directive is reached when the applicable national rules give workers’ representatives a right to act which is not limited by specific conditions.

(see paras 42-43, 45, operative part 1)

2. The fact that national rules, establishing procedures which permit workers’ representatives to ensure that the employer has complied with all the information and consultation obligations set out in Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, impose limits and conditions on the individual right of action which it also grants to every worker affected by collective redundancy is not of such a nature as to infringe the principle of effective judicial protection.

(see para. 52, operative part 2)

3. Article 2 of Directive 98/59 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as precluding national rules which reduce the obligations of an employer who intends to proceed with collective redundancies below those laid down in Article 2 of that directive. In applying domestic law, the national court is required, applying the principle of interpreting national law in conformity with Community law, to consider all the rules of national law and to interpret them, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of Directive 98/59 in order to achieve an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by the directive. Consequently, it must ensure, within the limits of its jurisdiction, that the obligations binding such an employer are not reduced below those laid down in Article 2 of that directive.

(see para. 65, operative part 3)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

16 July 2009 (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 98/59/EC – Articles 2 and 6 – Procedure for informing and consulting employees in the case of collective redundancy – Employer’s obligations – Workers’ right of action – Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law)

In Case C‑12/08,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium), made by decision of 3 January 2008, received at the Court on 11 January 2008, in the proceedings

Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation,

v

Dervis Odemis and Others,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, T. von Danwitz, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and J. Malenovský, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Mengozzi,

Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 6 November 2008,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation, by P. Cavenaile and F. Ligot, avocats,

– Mr Odemis and Others, by H. Deckers, avocat,

– the Belgian Government, by L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Demez, avocat,

– the United Kingdom Government, by I. Rao, acting as Agent, assisted by K. Smith, Barrister,

– the Commission of the European Communities, by M. Van Hoof and J. Enegren, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 21 January 2009,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This reference for a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of Articles 2 and 6 of 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).

2 The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Mono Car Styling SA (‘Mono Car’), a company in liquidation, and certain of its former employees in regard to their collective redundancy.

Legal framework

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

3 Under the title ‘Right to a fair trial’, Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘ECHR’) provides that:

‘In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. …’

Community law

4 Directive 98/59 consolidated Directive 75/129/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 48, p. 29).

5 According to recitals 2, 6, 10 and 12 in Directive 98/59:

‘(2) … it is important that greater protection should be afforded to workers in the event of collective redundancies while taking into account the need for balanced economic and social development within the Community;

…

(6) … the Community Charter of the fundamental social rights of workers, adopted at the European Council meeting held in Strasbourg on 9 December 1989 by the Heads of State or Government of 11 Member States, states, inter alia, in point 7, first paragraph, first sentence, and second paragraph; in point 17, first paragraph; and in point 18, third indent:

“7. The completion of the internal market must lead to an improvement in the living and working conditions of workers in the European Community …

The improvement must cover, where necessary, the development of certain aspects of employment regulations such as procedures for collective redundancies and those regarding bankruptcies.

…

17. Information, consultation and participation for workers must be developed along appropriate lines, taking account of the practices in force in the various Member States.

…

18. Such information, consultation and participation must be implemented in due time, particularly in the following cases:

…

…

– in cases of collective redundancy procedures;

…”;

…

(10) … the Member States should be given the option of stipulating that workers’ representatives may call on experts on grounds of the technical complexity of the matters which are likely to be the subject of the informing and consulting;

…

(12) … Member States should ensure that workers’ representatives and/or workers have at their disposal administrative and/or judicial procedures in order to ensure that the obligations laid down in this Directive are fulfilled’.

6 Article 2 of Directive 98/59 provides as follows:

‘1. Where an employer is contemplating collective redundancies, he shall begin consultations with the workers’ representatives in good time with a view to reaching an agreement.

2. These consultations shall, at least, cover ways and means of avoiding collective redundancies or reducing the number of workers affected, and of mitigating the consequences by recourse to accompanying social measures aimed, inter alia, at aid for redeploying or retraining workers made redundant.

Member States may provide that the workers’ representatives may call on the services of experts in accordance with national legislation and/or practice.

3. To enable workers’ representatives to make constructive proposals, the employers shall in good time during the course of the consultations:

(a) supply them with all relevant information and

(b) in any event notify them in writing of:

(i) the reasons for the projected redundancies;

(ii) the number of categories of workers to be made redundant;

(iii) the number and categories of workers normally employed;

(iv) the period over which the projected redundancies are to be effected;

(v) the criteria proposed for the selection of the workers to be made redundant in so far as national legislation and/or practice confers the power therefor upon the employer;

(vi) the method for calculating any redundancy payments other than those arising out of national legislation and/or practice.

The employer shall forward to the competent public authority a copy of, at least, the elements of the...