Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:741
Date: 2023-10-05
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Approximation of laws;Social Policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-496/22 – 1 
Case C-496/22 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
22 July 2022 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel București (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
22 June 2022 
Appellant: 
EI 
Respondent: 
SC Brink’s Cash Solutions SRL 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Appeal brought by EI requesting that the judgment of the Tribunalul București, 
Secția conflicte de muncă și asigurări sociale (Regional Court, Bucharest, 
Division for Labour Disputes and Social Insurance, Romania) be set aside and that 
the notice by which the respondent terminated EI’s individual employment 
contract, in the context of a collective redundancy procedure, be declared 
unlawful and unfounded  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
An interpretation of Article 1(1)(b) and Article 6 of Directive 98/59 is sought 
pursuant to Article 267 TFEU 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
(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 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-496/22 
 
2  
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? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member 
States relating to collective redundancies (OJ L 225, p. 16), recitals 2, 6 and 12, 
the first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(b), Article 2(3), and Article 6 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Legea nr. 53/2003 privind Codul muncii (Law No 53/2003 establishing the 
Labour Code), in particular Article 69, which provides, inter alia, that an employer 
which intends to carry out collective redundancies is required to enter into 
consultations with the trade union or, as the case may be, the workers’ 
representatives; Article 71, under which the trade union or, as the case may be, the 
workers’ representatives may propose to the employer measures to avoid the 
redundancies or reduce the number of employees made redundant; Article 221, 
under which, in the case of employers with more than 20 employees and with 
which no representative trade union organisations have been established in 
accordance with the law, the workers’ interests may be promoted and protected by 
their representatives, elected and appointed precisely for that purpose. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 SC Brink’s Cash Solutions SRL is a company belonging to the Brink’s Global 
Services group, a leader in the market for cash management and the transportation 
of valuable goods and related services – specialising in the provision of cash 
transportation and handling services and ATM feeding and maintenance services. 
It has around 2 700 employees nationally. 
2 On 14 August 2014, an individual contract of employment was concluded 
between the appellant, as an employee, and the respondent, as the employer. 
3 In the context of the outbreak of the SARS COV 2 pandemic and the 
establishment of the state of emergency in Romania between 16 March 2020 and 
BRINK’S CASH SOLUTIONS 
 
3 
15 May 2020, the company’s activity nationally saw a significant reduction which 
was reflected in the profits that it achieved. In this particular context, in order to 
remain competitive on the relevant market the company began cutting back on 
staff and initiated, on 12 May 2020, a collective redundancy procedure; it 
eliminated 128 posts nationally, taking as a basis the criterion of the result of 
periodic professional appraisals. 
4 At the time the collective redundancy procedure was initiated, the term of office 
of the representatives of the company’s workers had already expired, on 23 April 
2020, and had not been renewed. 
5 The employer notified its intention to carry out collective redundancy only to the 
major entities in the sector, without also giving such notice to the employees, 
which would have been addressed either to the representatives previously 
appointed whose term of office had expired or individually to each employee 
affected by the redundancy. In the absence of the appointment of new workers’ 
representatives, the company omitted the information and consultation stage, 
claiming that it was objectively impossible to carry it out and that there was no 
fault on its part. The collective redundancy procedure was initiated during the 
state of emergency, a period during which the exercise of several civil rights was 
limited, and this made it unlikely that the employees would have been able to 
successfully initiate a process to appoint their representatives nationally. 
6 In the context of the collective redundancy procedure, EI’s letter of dismissal was 
issued on 2 July 2020, which the latter challenged before the Tribunalul București, 
Secția conflicte de muncă și asigurări sociale (Regional Court, Bucharest, 
Division for Labour Disputes and Social Insurance). 
7 EI argued that the employer had a mandatory obligation, under Article 69 of the 
Labour Code, to carry out that worker consultation and information stage, even if 
the workers were not union members or had not appointed representatives who 
would protect their interests. He pointed out that it was for the employer to inform 
workers of the need to appoint new representatives precisely for that stage and 
that the rights of the workers who were unable to propose ways and means of 
avoiding collective redundancy or reducing the number of workers who would be 
made redundant, were seriously infringed. 
8 In its defence, the company argued that the term of office of workers’ 
representatives had expired before the initiation of the collective redundancy 
procedure and that that term of office had not been extended on account of the 
lack of coordination by the employees. The employee information and 
consultation could not have taken place and, since the law lays down an obligation 
to carry out the procedure with the trade union or the employees’ representatives, 
but not with the workers individually, it considered that it was exempt from that 
obligation and continued the collective redundancy procedure. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-496/22 
 
4  
9 Various employees made redundant challenged the legality of the redundancy 
procedure before the courts and a number of final judgments have been given to 
date. The courts have held that the redundancy decisions were made lawfully and 
that the collective redundancy procedure complied with the stages laid down by 
law, even though the employee information and consultation stage had not taken 
place. 
10 This conclusion was also reached by the Tribunalul București (Regional Court, 
Bucharest), which dismissed the action brought by EI. EI lodged an appeal against 
that dismissal before the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, 
Romania), which decided of its own motion to refer a question to the Court of 
Justice for a preliminary ruling. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
11 The referring court considers, in the light of recitals 2, 6 and 12 and Article 2(3) of 
Directive 98/59, that one of the objectives of that directive is to guarantee the 
participation of workers in the collective redundancy procedure, the purpose for 
which that directive imposed on employers the obligation to inform and consult 
workers – through their representatives – in advance, at an early stage of the 
collective redundancy procedure. 
12 The information must relate to the essential aspects of the restructuring planned by 
the employer, which have consequences for the employees, thus enabling the 
latter to react in order to reduce or counteract the negative impact of the 
redundancies, and thus balance the power between the employer and the 
employees. 
13 The fact that the text of the directive, in determining the beneficiaries of that 
obligation, refers to the workers’ representatives, but not to each worker or to all 
workers, making reference to the legislation of each Member State, does not allow 
the conclusion to be drawn that, in the absence of a mandatory national 
mechanism for appointing those representatives, the obligation to inform and 
consult is meaningless. 
14 From the interpretation of those provisions of the directive and Article 6 thereof, 
which refers to the right of the workers as an alternative to that of their 
representatives, the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) 
deduces that the worker information and consultation stage (in the absence of their 
representatives) is mandatory in the collective redundancy procedure, even where 
it does not actually change the restructuring plan envisaged by the employer. 
15 Other national appeal courts have arrived at the opposite view, relying on a literal 
interpretation of the directive, which provides that the beneficiaries of the 
information and consultation obligation are the ‘worker’s representatives’, in the 
absence of whom the employer is exempt from the information and consultation 
stage. This different interpretation gives rise to contrasting views on the 
BRINK’S CASH SOLUTIONS 
 
5 
lawfulness of a collective redundancy procedure and the referring court finds that 
it needs an answer from the Court of Justice to be able to apply EU law correctly. 
16 Consequently, the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest) 
considers that the national legislature failed correctly to transpose the provisions 
of Directive 98/59 in order to ensure the effectiveness of the rules thereof since it 
did not make mandatory a mechanism for appointing representatives of an 
employer’s workers. 
17 The provisions of EU law to which the questions referred to the Court of Justice 
by the present reference relate have not yet been the subject of interpretation as 
requested by the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest), which, in 
its request for a preliminary ruling, refers to the judgment of 16 July 2009, Mono 
Car Styling (C-12/08), and the judgment of 8 June 1994, Commission v United 
Kingdom (C-382/92). 
18 In the first of those judgments, the Court of Justice held that 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 Court of Justice analysed the level of protection 
of that right only in the light of Article 6. However, in the present case the 
referring court considers that it is necessary to determine whether the employer 
has an obligation to inform and consult if the workers cannot be considered, from 
a legal point of view, to be a collective in the national legal order. 
19 As regards the second judgment of the Court of Justice which is mentioned, the 
referring court refers to paragraphs 18 and 24, in which the Court of Justice 
examined a provision of Directive 77/187/EEC which defined ‘employees’ 
[workers’] representatives’ in terms identical to those of Directive 98/59. 
20 The referring court notes, however, that the case-law cited does not allow it to 
draw the conclusion that there is an acte éclairé and that the correct application of 
EU law in the present case is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable 
doubt. 
21 In employment disputes, the decisions given by the referring court are not subject 
to any legal remedy under national law and therefore that court is required, under 
the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, to refer the questions to the Court of 
Justice for a preliminary ruling.