COMMISSION v PORTUGAL 
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL 
TIZZANO 
delivered on 11 March 2004 ' 
I — Introduction 
1. In these proceedings, brought by the 
Commission of the European Communities 
('the Commission') under Article 226 EC, the 
Court is requested to determine whether the 
Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its 
obligations under Council Directive 98/59/ 
EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of 
the laws of the Member States relating to 
collective redundancies ('the Directive'). 2 It 
is necessary to determine whether the 
definition of collective redundancies in the 
Directive includes all dismissals for any 
reason not related to the individual workers 
concerned or whether that definition may be 
restricted to dismissals arising for structural, 
technological or cyclical reasons. II — The legal background 
A — The Community legislation 
2. The Directive is based on Article 100 of 
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, 
Article 94 EC), and was adopted in order to 
alleviate the effects on the functioning of the 
internal market of differences between 
national laws (fourth recital in the preamble). 
The Directive is intended to afford greater 
protection to workers, taking into account 
the need for a high level of economic and 
social development within the Community, 
as well as the principles of social policy 
enshrined in the 1989 Community Charter of 
the fundamental social rights of workers and 
Article 117 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 
120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by 
Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) (second and sixth 
recitals in the preamble). 
3. For the purposes of this case, particular 
reference should be made to the first 1 — Original language: Italian. 
2 - O) 1998 L 225. p. 16. This Directive is a codification of 
Directive 75/129/EEC of 17 february 1975. as amended by 
Directive 92/56/EEC of 24 lune 1992 (OJ 1992 L 245, p. 3). 
I - 9389 
OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — CASE C-55/02 
subparagraph of Article 1(1) of the Directive, 
which provides: 
'For the purposes of this Directive: 
(a) "collective redundancies" means dismis­
sals effected by an employer for one or 
more reasons not related to the indivi­
dual workers concerned where, accord­
ing to the choice of the Member States, 
the number of redundancies is: 
(i) either, over a period of 30 days: 
— at least 10 in establishments 
normally employing more than 
20 and less then 100 workers, 
— at least 10% of the number of 
workers in establishments nor­
mally employing at least 100 but 
less than 300 workers, 
— at least 30 in establishments 
normally employing 300 workers 
or more, (ii) or, over a period of 90 days, at least 
20, whatever the number of workers 
normally employed in the establish­
ments in question.' 
4. The second subparagraph of Article 1(1) 
of the Directive deals with so-called redun­
dancies by assimilation. It provides that 'for 
the purpose of calculating the number of 
redundancies provided for in the first sub­
paragraph of point (a), terminations of an 
employment contract which occur on the 
employer's initiative for one or more reasons 
not related to the individual workers con­
cerned shall be assimilated to redundancies, 
provided that there are at least five redun­
dancies'. 
5. Article 3, in turn, provides that: 
'1. Employers shall notify the competent 
public authority in writing of any projected 
collective redundancies. 
However, Member States may provide that in 
the case of planned collective redundancies 
arising from termination of the establish­
ment's activities as a result of a judicial 
decision, the employer shall be obliged to 
notify the competent public authority in 
writing only if the latter so requests. 
I - 9390 
COMMISSION v PORTUGAL 
This notification shall contain all relevant 
information concerning the projected col­
lective redundancies and the consultations 
with workers' representatives provided for in 
Article 2, and particularly the reasons for the 
redundancies, the number of workers to be 
made redundant, the number of workers 
normally employed and the period over 
which the redundancies are to be effected. 
2. Employers shall forward to the workers' 
representatives a copy of the notification 
provided for in paragraph 1. 
The workers' representatives may send any 
comments they may have to the competent 
public authority.' 
6. Finally, Article 4 provides: 
'1. Projected collective redundancies notified 
to the competent public authority shall take 
effect not earlier than 30 days after the 
notification referred to in Article 3(1) with­
out prejudice to any provisions governing 
individual rights with regard to notice of 
dismissal. Member Stales may grant the competent 
public authority the power to reduce the 
period provided for in the preceding sub­
paragraph. 
2. The period provided for in paragraph 1 
shall be used by the competent public 
authority to seek solutions to the problems 
raised by the projected collective redundan­
cies. 
3. Where the initial period provided for in 
paragraph 1 is shorter than 60 days, Member 
States may grant the competent public 
authority the power to extend the initial 
period to 60 days following notification 
where the problems raised by the projected 
collective redundancies are not likely to be 
solved within the initial period. 
Member States may grant the competent 
public authority wider powers of extension. 
The employer must be informed of the 
extension and the grounds for it before 
expiry of the initial period provided for in 
paragraph 1. 
4. Member States need not apply this Article 
to collective redundancies arising from 
I - 9391 
OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — CASE C-55/02 
termination of the establishment's activities 
where this is the result of a judicial decision.' 
B — The national legislation 
7. The Directive was transposed into Portu­
guese law by Decree-Law No 64-A/89 of 27 
February 1989 concerning the legal rules 
governing the termination of individual 
employment contracts and the conclusion 
and expiry of fixed-term employment con­
tracts ('the LCCT'), as amended by Law No 
32/99 of 18 May 1999. 
8. Portuguese law contemplates two forms 
of collective redundancy: (a) 'collective 
redundancy' in the narrower sense (Section 
I, Article 16 et seq., of the LCCT) and (b) 'the 
termination of the employment relationship 
where jobs have been lost for economic, 
market-related, technological or cyclical rea­
sons 3 in cases which do not involve 
collective redundancy' (Section II, Article 
26 et seq., of the LCCT). 
9. Collective redundancy in the narrower 
sense is defined in Article 16 of the LCCT as: 
'the termination, on the employer's initiative, 
of individual employment contracts concern­ing, either simultaneously or in succession, at 
least two workers within a three-month 
period in the case of an undertaking employ­
ing up to 50 persons or at least five in the 
case of an undertaking employing more than 
50 workers, provided that such termination 
is based on the definitive closure of the 
undertaking, of one or more departments of 
the latter or on staff reductions effected for 
structural, technological or cyclical reasons'. 4 
10. Jobs are said to be lost for the economic, 
market-related, technological or cyclical rea­
sons mentioned in Section II when the 
requirements of Article 16 of the LCCT are 
not fulfilled, that is, when the number of 
workers made redundant is less than the 
minimum necessary for a collective redun­
dancy. 
11. As far as the present case is concerned, 
Article 3 of the LCCT first sets out a 
prohibition on redundancies without just 
cause and then lists the possible grounds for 
termination of an employment contract. 
These include the expiry of the employment 
contract, which brings about the automatic 
termination of the employment relation­
ship. 5 
3 — Emphasis added. 4 — Emphasis added. 
5 — Caducidade in the original version, expiration in the French 
translation. 
I - 9392 
COMMISSION v PORTUGAL 
12. An absolute and definitive inability on 
the part of either the worker to perform his 
duties or the employer to benefit from them 
is amongst the various ways in which the 
employment contract may expire (Article 4 
of the LCCT). 
13. The employment contract also expires 
on the death of the employer if his heirs do 
not continue the business for which the 
worker was employed and the undertaking is 
not sold (Article 6 of the LCCT). 
III — Facts and procedure 
14. In a letter of formal notice dated 28 April 
1999, the Commission informed the Portu­
guese Republic that, in its opinion, by 
restricting the concept of collective redun­
dancy to dismissals arising for structural, 
technical or cyclical reasons, but omitting 
other forms of redundancy for any reason 
not related to the individual workers con­
cerned, the Portuguese Republic had failed to 
fulfil its obligations under the Directive. 
15. On 18 June 1999, the Portuguese Gov­
ernment replied to the letter of formal 
notice, stating that it had fulfilled its obliga­
tions. 16. As it was not satisfied by this answer, the 
Commission, on 29 December 2000, sent a 
reasoned opinion to Portugal reaffirming its 
point of view. 
17. In a letter dated 2 April 2001, the 
Portuguese authorities recognised the need 
for a partial amendment to the national 
rules. However, they rejected the criticism 
that the Directive should apply in situations 
where an undertaking definitively ceases 
trading for reasons beyond the control of 
the employer. 
18. The Commission, dissatisfied with Por­
tugal's answers, brought the present action 
before the Court on 22 February 2002. 
IV — Legal appraisal 
19. As we have seen, in this case, the 
Commission criticises the Portuguese 
Republic for not having correctly transposed 
the Directive, in that it has restricted the 
concept of collective redundancy to dismis­
sals arising for structural, technological or 
cyclical reasons, thereby rendering the pro­
tection guaranteed under the Directive 
narrower in scope than that set out in Article 
1 of the Directive itself. 
I - 9393 
OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — CASE C-55/02 
20. According to the Commission, the 
Portuguese legislation would, in particular, 
have the effect of removing that protection in 
cases of bankruptcy, winding-up and similar 
procedures, expropriation, fire or other 
causes of force majeure, or where the 
undertaking has ceased trading on the death 
of its owner. 
21. The Portuguese Republic recognises that 
the Commission's objections are founded in 
respect of cases in which employment 
contracts are terminated where an under­
taking has ceased trading following a bank­
ruptcy order, where the winding-up proce­
dure leads to the closure of an undertaking 
which has not been fully disposed of. 
22. On the other hand, the defendant 
government rejects the other criticisms. 
Indeed, in its opinion, of the other situations 
mentioned by the Commission, some do not 
constitute collective redundancies because 
they are not attributable to a voluntary act on 
the part of the employer, 6 one is not subject 
to the Directive because it should be regarded as a redundancy by assimilation, 7 
and the others are already regulated by the 
Portuguese legislation on collective redun­
dancy. 
23. Let me say at once that I am not 
convinced by the Portuguese Government's 
defence for reasons I shall explain, and that I 
find the Commission's action to be well 
founded, despite a number of uncertainties 
in its arguments. 
24. In the first place, I cannot agree with 
what appears to me to be the starting point 
of the defendant government's reasoning, 
that is to say, the argument that, since the 
Directive fails to define the concept of 
'redundancy', it is for the national legislature 
to define this concept. 
25. It seems to me to be clear, in fact, that 
this line of argument would have damaging 
consequences, because if each Member State 
were at liberty to produce its own definition 
of redundancy, the scope of the concept 
would vary according to the different 
national rules of the Member States, creating 
the risk that the Directive's harmonisation 
objectives would be seriously undermined. 6 — The following cases are concerned: separate sale of the goods 
of an undertaking subject to bankruptcy and winding-up 
where the establishments have not been entirely disposed of 
by sale; winding-up of credit institutions, holding companies, 
investment companies and investment fund management 
companies; dissolution of public economic establishments by 
decree law, expropriation of immovable property leading to 
the definitive cessation of the business carried out therein; 
destruction by fire of the undertaking's premises, making it 
impossible for the employer to benefit from the worker's 
duties. 7 — The Portuguese Government refers to instances where the 
employment relationship ceases on the death of the owner 
where his heirs refuse to continue trading. 
I - 9394 
COMMISSION v PORTUGAL 
26. I note that the lesson to be drawn from 
the Court's rulings in cases where terms are 
used but not defined in Community texts is 
quite different. The Court has in fact held 
that 'The need for a uniform application of 
Community law and the principle of equality 
require that the terms of a provision of 
Community law which makes no express 
reference to the law of the Member States for 
the purpose of determining its meaning and 
scope must normally be given an indepen­
dent and uniform interpretation throughout 
the Community; that interpretation must 
take into account the context of the provi­
sion and the purpose of the relevant regula­
tions'. 8 
27. The definition of 'redundancy' in the 
Directive must therefore, as with all concepts 
of Community law, be given an 'independent' 
and uniform construction, based as stated 
before on the criteria referred to by the 
Court. 
28. With the false premiss I have just 
mentioned as its basis, however, the Portu­
guese Government formulates its own defi­nition of redundancy which is deemed to be 
a voluntary act on the part of the employer, 
intended to put an end to the employment 
relationship. An essential requirement of this 
definition is therefore that the measure 
should be 'voluntary' in nature. From this 
premiss the Portuguese Government draws 
the conclusion that the majority of the cases 
to which the Commission objected cannot be 
regarded as 'redundancies', given that they 
involved termination of employment rela­
tionships arising not from a voluntary act on 
the part of the employer but rather by 
operation of law. 
29. However, that conclusion is not in my 
opinion in line with a series of factors which 
I shall now try to set out. 
30. First, in general terms, that conclusion 
does not appear consistent with the aims of 
the Directive, as specifically laid clown in its 
second recital, which explains that the 
Directive was enacted because 'it is impor­
tant that greater protection should be 
afforded to workers ...'. This should be 
attained in conformity with the Community 
Charter of fundamental social rights, speci­
fically mentioned in the Directive's sixth 
recital, which provides that '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 redundan-8 - Case 327/82 Ebro [1984] ECR 107, paragraph 11. Sec also, 
most recently Case C-201/02 Wells [2004] ECR I-723, 
paragraph 37, in which the Court had occasion to rule on 
the concept of development consent within the meaning of 
Article 1(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 june 1985 
on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private 
projects on the environment: 'a provision of Community Law 
which makes no express reference to the law of the Member 
States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope is 
normally to be given throughout the Community an 
autonomous and uniform interpretation ...'. 
I - 9395 
OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — CASE C-55/02 
cies ...'. This aim would be only partially 
achieved if workers were deprived of the 
Directive's protection where the termination 
of the employment relationship is imposed 
by circumstances beyond the employer's 
control. 
31. In my view, certain significant judicial 
precedents are also based on a construction 
similarly intended to foster the protection of 
workers. I refer specifically to the ruling in 
Commission v Italy in which the scope of the 
Directive as set out in the second recital was 
taken as its basis by the Court in adopting a 
broad construction of the definition of 
employer for the purposes of Article 1 of 
the Directive. Those engaged in non-profit-
making activities are, thus, also covered. 9 
32. I also note the Court's ruling in Commis­
sion v United Kingdom as an example of a 
non-restrictive approach to the scope of the 
Directive. In that judgment the Court 
recognised that the United Kingdom had 
infringed the Directive by limiting its appli­
cation to redundancies made for economic 
reasons, and thus to instances — entirely 
comparable to the redundancies made for 
structural, technological or cyclical reasons 
in the present case — which do not exhaust 
the scope of the Directive. 10 33. In the light of the foregoing, I am 
therefore inclined to the view that no 
restriction on the scope of the protection 
provided by the Directive may be presumed 
or deduced indirectly, but must be clearly set 
out in the legislative text. This should also 
apply to any construction intended to 
deprive workers of the Directive's protection 
where the termination of the employment 
relationship is imposed by circumstances 
beyond the employer's control. 
34. Above all, and more specifically, it seems 
to me that the argument that it is an essential 
requirement of the concept of 'redundancy' 
that it should result from a voluntary act is 
contradicted by the Directive itself. Indeed, 
the ninth recital in the preamble and the 
second subparagraph of Article 3(1) make it 
clear that the termination of an employment 
relationship arising from a judicial decision is 
covered by the definition of collective 
redundancy in the Directive. It is, I think, 
clear that in such a case one cannot talk of 
redundancy as being 'voluntary'. If, therefore, 
the Directive incorporates this argument, 
then redundancy within the meaning of the 
Directive does not necessarily require a 
voluntary termination of the employment 
relationship. The obvious consequence of 
this is that, contrary to the arguments of the 
Portuguese Government, no termination of 
an employment relationship may escape the 
provisions of the Directive solely because it 
was imposed by circumstances beyond the 
employer's control. 9 — Case C-32/02 [2003] ECR I-12063, paragraph 26. 
10 — Case C-383/92 [1994] ECR I-2479, paragraph 32: 'The 
concept of "redundancy" ... does not cover all the cases of 
"collective redundancy" covered by the Directive.' 
I - 9396 
COMMISSION v PORTUGAL 
35. I may therefore conclude on this point 
that 'redundancy' within the meaning of the 
Directive includes any termination of the 
employment relationship not desired by the 
worker and due to causes which may also be 
beyond the employers control. 
36. The concept of redundancy thus defined 
clearly includes the instances disputed by the 
Commission: bankruptcy, winding-up and 
similar procedures, expropriation, fire or 
other causes of force majeure, or where the 
undertaking has ceased trading on the death 
of its owner. 
37. In view of this interpretation of the 
concept of redundancy, it is not significant 
that, as the Portuguese Government objects, 
the instances disputed by the Commission 
are defined in Portuguese law not as 
redundancies but as cases in which an 
employment contract expires by operation 
of law. Indeed, even though under national 
legislation the termination occurs by opera­
tion of law, the fact remains that the worker 
does not desire the termination of the 
employment relationship and that this there­
fore constitutes a redundancy for the pur­
poses of the Directive. 
38. In any event, I would repeat that the 
construction of concepts of Community law 
cannot hinge on national law and its 
attendant concepts. Although the instances criticised by the Commission are defined in 
Portuguese law not as redundancies but as 
cases of expiry, this has no bearing on the 
fact that they are defined as redundancies 
within the meaning of the Directive. 
39. Moreover, for this very reason, the 
Portuguese Government may not invoke 
national law as a justification for its failure 
to implement correctly a Community direc­
tive. Indeed, according to the Court's settled 
case-law on this point, Member States may 
not plead provisions, practices or circum­
stances existing in their internal legal system 
in order to justify a failure to comply with 
obligations and time-limits resulting from 
Community directives. 11 
40. The Portuguese Government's further 
argument that it believes it can restrict the 
definition of redundancy in the Directive by 
referring to the rules governing redundancy 
by assimilation in the second subparagraph 
of Article 1(1) of the Directive also appears 
to me to be unfounded. 
41. That provision slates: 'For the purpose of 
calculating the number of redundancies 
provided for in the fust subparagraph of 
11 — See Case 42/80 Commission v Italy [1980] ECR 3635, 
paragraph 4. 
I - 9397 
OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — CASE C-55/02 
point (a), terminations of an employment 
contract which occur on the employer's 
initiative for one or more reasons not related 
to the individual workers concerned shall be 
assimilated to redundancies, provided that 
there are at least five redundancies'. 12 
42. The Portuguese Government's first and, 
what is more, entirely defensible premiss is 
that this provision should be construed as 
meaning that so-called redundancies by 
assimilation are not subject to the Directive 
but are of significance only for the purpose of 
calculating the minimum number of redun­
dancies necessary for the Directive to apply. 
43. That said, the arguments used by the 
Portuguese Government in its defence seem 
to imply — in terms which moreover appear 
to contradict its definition of redundancy as 
a voluntary act of the employer (paragraph 
28) — an interpretation of the concept of 
redundancy by assimilation which would 
lead to the inclusion of any termination of 
the employment relationship occurring on 
the employer's initiative. 
44. Consequently, the Portuguese Govern­
ment claims that at least one of the instances 
disputed by the Commission, that of the 
termination of the employment relationship arising from a refusal by the owner's heirs to 
continue trading, would not be subject to the 
Directive. 
45. I note, however, that the employer's 
initiative cannot be the distinguishing criter­
ion between the two types of redundancy in 
question. This follows, even if only indirectly, 
from the eighth recital, according to which 
'in order to calculate the number of redun­
dancies provided for in the definition of 
collective redundancies within the meaning 
of this Directive, other forms of termination 
of employment contracts on the initiative of 
the employer should be equated to redun­
dancies'. 13 The interposition of the adjective 
'other' between 'redundancies' and 'forms of 
termination of employment contracts on the 
initiative of the employer' implies that 
redundancies in the narrower sense may also 
be regarded as occurring on the employer's 
initiative. 
46. Above all, if the Portuguese Govern­
ment's interpretation were well founded, it 
would follow that the first subparagraph of 
Article 1(1) would be rendered meaningless 
by the second subparagraph, given that 
'dismissals effected by an employer' as a rule 
give rise to 'terminations of an employment 
contract... on the initiative of the employer'. 
If the simultaneous existence of the two 
provisions is to be meaningful, the second 
subparagraph must therefore be presumed to 
refer to something else. In my opinion, and 
12 — Emphasis added. 13 — Emphasis added. 
I - 9398 
COMMISSION v PORTUGAL 
widely-held expert legal opinion corrobo­
rates this, the second subparagraph is 
intended to refer to instances in which the 
employment relationship is indeed termi­
nated on the employer's initiative, but with 
the agreement of the worker, in circumstances 
in which the latter is encouraged to give his 
agreement (for example, in exchange for 
financial advantages). 
47. If my interpretation is correct, then 
redundancy by assimilation is to be distin­
guished from redundancy in the narrower 
sense not so much because it involves the 
taking of an initiative on the part of the 
employer, but because it entails the worker's 
agreement, which is not the case for actual 
redundancy. 14 
48. That point having been made, I note that 
the worker's agreement is clearly absent from 
the case posited by the Portuguese Govern­
ment (termination of the relationship on the 
death of the owner where the heirs do not 
continue trading). That case cannot there­
fore be regarded as fulfilling the definition of 
redundancy by assimilation. If this is so, 
however, it must be regarded as a redun­
dancy within the meaning of the Directive. 49. It is possible to state at this point that 
the Portuguese Government's abovemen-
tioned objections, as a whole, cannot be 
accepted. It must therefore be concluded 
that the cases disputed by the Commission 
are indeed included in the concept of 
redundancy in Article 1(1)(a) of the Direc­
tive, and, in more general terms, that the 
Directive does not allow Member States to 
restrict the guarantees in question to 
instances of collective redundancy for struc­
tural, economic or cyclical reasons. 
50. Against the conclusion that I have 
advanced, the Portuguese Government, how­
ever, maintains the argument that various 
provisions of the Directive do not lend 
themselves to application in cases in which 
the termination of the employment contract 
is not contingent on the wishes of the 
employer. It refers in particular to the 
provisions in the Directive (Articles 2 and 
3) concerning the employer's obligation to 
consult workers' representatives, to commu­
nicate the period over which the redundan­
cies are to be effected and to notify the 
competent public authority of the projected 
collective redundancy. However, it also refers 
to Article 4 of the Directive, which states that 
the redundancy may take effect not earlier 
than 30 days after the notification of the 
competent public authority. 14 — See Case 284/83 Dansk Metalarbejderforbund [1985] ECR 
553. in which the Court ruled out the possibility that 
termination of an employment contract by a worker could be 
regarded as a redundancy under the Directive (paragraph 8). 
I - 9399 
OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — CASE C-55/02 
51. The Portuguese Government submits 
that because the provisions of the Directive 
setting out these procedural obligations 
cannot be applied to the disputed cases, 
such cases should be omitted from the scope 
of the Directive in their totality. 
52. Nevertheless, the foregoing procedural 
obligations also appear to be applicable, with 
appropriate adaptations, to the cases in 
respect of which the Commission claims 
that the Directive has not been correctly 
implemented. As the Commission in fact 
observes, the consultations provided for in 
Article 2 of the Directive are not intended 
merely to reduce or avoid redundancies, but 
also to mitigate the consequences by 
recourse to accompanying social measures 
designed to facilitate the redeployment or 
retraining of workers made redundant. 
53. Similarly, the obligation in Article 3 of 
the Directive to notify the competent public 
authority could also be fulfilled by the 
employer in the case of an undertaking 
destroyed by fire and by the heirs of a 
deceased owner. A contrary interpretation 
would deprive workers of the protection 
provided for in Article 4 of the Directive, 
which establishes a period within which the 
aforementioned authority is required to seek 
solutions to the problems raised by the 
projected collective redundancies. 54. The provision of the 30-day period as the 
period within which the redundancy may not 
take effect (Article 4(1) of the Directive) is 
also applicable to the cases disputed by the 
Commission. This period at least makes it 
possible for workers to receive a final salary 
payment and therefore fully corresponds to 
the Directive's objective of protecting work­
ers' rights. 
55. In conclusion, I submit for the foregoing 
reasons that Portugal has failed to fulfil its 
obligations under the Directive and the third 
paragraph of Article 249 EC by restricting 
the guarantees provided for in the case of 
collective redundancies to dismissals arising 
for structural, technological or cyclical rea­
sons but omitting other forms of redundancy 
for any reason not related to the individual 
workers concerned. 
V — Costs 
56. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of 
Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be 
ordered to pay costs if they have been 
applied for in the successful party's plead­
ings. Since the Commission has asked that 
the costs be paid by the Portuguese Republic, 
which has been unsuccessful, the latter 
should be ordered to pay the costs. 
I - 9400 
COMMISSION v PORTUGAL 
VI — Conclusion 
57. For the abovementioned reasons, I propose that the Court declare: 
(1) By restricting the guarantees provided for in the case of collective redundancies 
to dismissals arising for structural, technological or cyclical reasons, thereby 
omitting other forms of redundancy for any reason not related to the individual 
workers concerned, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations 
under Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the 
laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies and the third 
paragraph of Article 249 EC. 
(2) The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay costs. 
I - 9401