Rapport mill-Kummissjoni dwar id-Direttiva 2001/23/KE tal-Kunsill tat-12 ta’ Marzu 2001 dwar l-approssimazzjoni tal-liġijiet ta’ l-Istati Membri relatati mas-salvagwardja tad-drittijiet ta’ l-impjegati fil-każ ta’ trasferiment ta’ impriżi, negozji jew partijiet ta’ impriżi jew negozji [SEG(2007) 812] /* KUMM/2007/0334 finali */





[pic] | KUMMISSJONI TAL-KOMUNITAJIET EWROPEJ | Brussel 18.6.2007 KUMM(2007) 334 finali RAPPORT MILL-KUMMISSJONI dwar id-Direttiva 2001/23/KE tal-Kunsill tat-12 ta’ Marzu 2001 dwar l-approssimazzjoni tal-liġijiet ta’ l-Istati Membri relatati mas-salvagwardja tad-drittijiet ta’ l-impjegati fil-każ ta’ trasferiment ta’ impriżi, negozji jew partijiet ta’ impriżi jew negozji [SEG(2007) 812] RAPPORT MILL-KUMMISSJONI dwar id-Direttiva 2001/23/KE tal-Kunsill tat-12 ta’ Marzu 2001 dwar l-approssimazzjoni tal-liġijiet ta’ l-Istati Membri relatati mas-salvagwardja tad-drittijiet ta’ l-impjegati fil-każ ta’ trasferiment ta’ impriżi, negozji jew partijiet ta’ impriżi jew negozji DAĦLA Id-Direttiva 2001/23/KE tal-Kunsill tat-12 ta’ Marzu 2001 dwar l-approssimazzjoni tal-liġijiet ta’ l-Istati Membri relatati mas-salvagwardja tad-drittijiet ta’ l-impjegati fil-każ ta’ trasferiment ta’ impriżi, negozji jew partijiet ta’ impriżi jew negozji [1] tistabbilixxi d-Direttiva tal-Kunsill 77/187/KEE[2], kif mibdula mid-Direttiva tal-Kunsill 98/50/KE[3]. Skond l-artikolu 7b stabbilit bid-Direttiva 98/50/KE, « il-Kummissjoni tippreżenta lill-Kunsill analiżi ta’ l-effetti tad-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ din id-Direttiva qabel is-17 ta’ Lulju 2006. Din tipproponi kull tibdil li jista’ jidher meħtieġ». Dan l-Artikolu sar l-Artikolu 10 tad-Direttiva 2001/23/KE. Għalhekk l-iskop tar-rapport preżenti huwa li janalizza d-dispożizzjonijiet tad-direttiva fid-dawl ta’ l-esperjenza miksuba u b’mod notevoli tal-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti, kif ukoll b’kunsiderazzjoni tat-tweġibiet ta’ l-Istati Membri u ta’ l-imsieħba soċjali għall-kwestjonarju li kien indirizzat lilhom mill-Kummissjoni (ara l-Anness I) biex jippermettilha li tipproponi bidliet possibbli. Rapport dettaljat dwar id-dħul fis-seħħ tad-direttiva f’kull wieħed mill-ħamsa u għoxrin Stati Membri ser ikun ippreparat mis-servizzi tal-Kummissjoni fl-2007. Id-Direttiva, ibbażata fuq l-Artikolu 94 tat-Trattat KE, hija maħsuba biex tipproteġi l-ħaddiema f’każ ta’ bidliet tal-kap ta’ l-intrapriża, u b’mod partikolari biex tiżgura l-ħarsien tad-drittijiet tagħhom. Hija tibda mid-dikjarazzjoni li jeżistu d-differenzi fl-Istati Membri f’dak li jikkonċerna l-protezzjoni tal-ħaddiema f’dan il-qasam u tenfasizza l-effett li jista’ jkollhom dawn id-differenzi fuq it-tħaddim tas-suq komuni. Minħabba f’hekk, hija tikkonkludi li tiġi armonizzata din il-protezzjoni. L-għan ta’ din l-armonizzazzjoni huwa doppju : li tiġi żgurata protezzjoni komparabbli mad-drittijiet tal-ħaddiema fid-diversi Stati Membri u, fl-istess waqt, tqarrab id-dmirijiet li jimponu dawn ir-regoli ta’ protezzjoni għall-intrapriżi tal-Komunità. Il-Qorti enfasizzat diversi drabi li r-regoli tad-direttiva għandhom jitqiesu bħala essenzjali, fis-sens li ma jkunx permess li jkun hemm xi deroga f’sens ta’ żvantaġġ għall-ħaddiema. B’hekk, ħaddiem ma jkunx jista’ jirrinunzja għad-drittijiet li tagħtih id-direttiva u dawn id-drittijiet ma jistgħux ikunu llimitati, lanqas bil-kunsens tiegħu, ukoll jekk l-iżvantaġġi li jirriżultawlu minn din ir-rinunzja jiġu kompensati b’vantaġġi b’mod li dan ma jsibx ruħu globalment f’sitwazzjoni anqas favorevoli. Fil-31 ta’ Awissu 2006, id-Direttiva kienet tat lok għal 44 sentenza tal-Qorti li minnhom 40 kienu jirreferu għal kwistjonijiet preġudizzjali. Tletin minn dawn is-sentenzi għandhom x’jaqsmu ma’ l-ambitu tad-direttiva u notevolment ma’ l-idea ta’ trasferiment. Id-Direttiva 98/50/KE msemmija hawn fuq tispeċifika din l-idea fid-dawl tal-ġurisprudenza abbondanti tal-Qorti. Jidher li dan jispjega għaliex ma kienx hemm ħlief sentenza waħdab’dan il-għan għal trasferimenti li saru wara s-17 ta’ Lulju 2001. (id-data ta’ l-iskadenza tat-traspożizzjoni tad-Direttiva). AMBITU (L-ARTIKOKI 1 U 2) Ambitu tal-persunal L-entitajiet ikkonċernati Id-direttiva tapplika għat-trasferimenti ta’ intrapriżi, stabbilimenti jew partijiet ta’ intrapriżi jew stabbilimenti. Dawn il-kunċetti jistgħu jinġabru taħt il-kunċett aktar ġenerali ta’ «entità ekomomika» li għandha tinftiehem, għall-fini tad-direttiva, bħala grupp organizzat ta’ mezzi li jippermettu l-eżerċizzju ta’ attività ekonomika biex jintlaħaq l-għan proprju. Min-naħa ta’ l-attività, l-element essenzjali li jiddistingwi entità kemm jekk hija intrapriża jew stabbiliment hija s-segwitu ta’ attività ekonomika, fi kliem ieħor il-fatt li hija tforni beni u servizzi fis-suq. L-attivitajiet li jimplikaw l-eżerċizzju ta’ awtorità pubblika ma jaqgħux fl-ambitu tad-direttiva. It-trasferimenti li jimplikaw bastimenti tal-baħar huma esklużi b’mod espliċitu mid-direttiva. Minkejja dan, id-dispożizzjonijiet nazzjonali li jittrasponu t-termini tad-direttiva japplikaw għal bastimenti tal-baħar fi tnax-il Stat Membru (ara l-Anness I, punt 1.5). Il-ħaddiema protetti It-terminu « ħaddiem » tirreferi għal kull persuna li fl-Istat Membru kkonċernat, hija protetta bħala ħaddiem fil-qafas tal-leġislazzjoni nazzjonali dwar l-impjiegi. Il-ħaddiema kollha huma protetti, inklużi l-ħaddiema bil-kuntratt bi skadenza determinata jew ħaddiema part-time . Ambitu materjali Biex ikun hemm trasferiment, għandhom ikunu ssodisfatti żewġ kondizzjonijiet : a) irid ikun hemm tibdil f’min iħaddem u b) l-entità trasferita għandha żżomm l-identità tagħha. Bidla f’min iħaddem Jeħtieġ li jkun hemm tibdil, fir-relazzjonijiet kuntrattwali, tal-persuna morali jew fiżika li hija responsabbli għas-segwitu ta’ l-attività u li tassumi l-obbligi ta’ min iħaddem fir-rigward ta’ ħaddiema ta’ entità. It-trasferiment tal-proprjetà tal-biċċa l-kbira ta’ l-assi ta’ intrapriża jew tibdil tal-maġġoranza tal-proprjetarji ta’ l-ishma ma jikkostitwixxux trasferiment ta’ intrapriża, peress li l-personalità ġuridika ta’ min iħaddem tibqa’ l-istess. Il-Kummissjoni tikkunsidra li f’dan l-istadju mhix ġustifikata reviżjoni tad-direttiva bil-ħsieb li tinkludi fil-kunċett ta’ trasferiment il-bdil ta’ kontroll kif propost mill-Konfederazzjoni Ewropea tad-trejdjunjins (ara l-Anness I, il-punt 4). Fil-fatt, għalkemm bidla ta’ kontroll tista’ ġġib tibdil fl-intrapriża, il-fatt hu li l-pożizzjoni ġuridika tal-ħaddiema quddiem min iħaddem tibqa’ l-istess. Madankollu, permezz tad-direttiva 2002/14/KE[4], dawn il-bidliet jagħtu lok għall-modilitajiet ta’ informazzjoni u konsultazzjoni xierqa. Iż-żamma ta’ l-identità Iż-żamma ta’ l-identità toħroġ l-ewwelnett mis-segwitu ta’ l-istess attivitajiet mill-persuna l-ġdida li tħaddem u mill-ħarsien tal-persunal, l-addattament għall-post tax-xogħol, l-organizzazzjoni tax-xogħol, il-metodi ta’ ġestjoni jew mir-riżorsi operattivi disponibbli. Hawn jidħlu t-tribunali nazzjonali li jiġġudikaw jekk hemmx trasferiment jew le skond il-kriterji speċifiċi addattati ta’ interpretazzjoni : - it-tip ta’ intrapriża jew stabbiliment ; - it-trasferiment jew le ta’ l-elementi korporali bħalma huma bini jew beni mobbli ; - valur ta’ elementi li mhux korporali waqt it-trasferiment ; - it-teħid jew le mill-persuna ġdida li tħaddem tal-maġġoranza tal-ħaddiema; - it-trasferiment jew le tal-klijenti ; - il-livell ta’ xebħ bejn l-attivitajiet fis-seħħ qabel u wara t-trasferiment ; - jekk ikun il-każ, perjodu ta’ sospenzjoni ta’ l-attivitajiet. Madankollu dawn l-elementi kollha ma jikkostitwixxux ħlief aspetti parzjali tal-valutazzjoni globali imposti u li fil-fatt ma jistgħux jiġu stmati separatament. L-awtoritajiet Irlandiżi pproponew li jirrevedu l-kunċett ta’ trasferiment bl-iskop li jiċċaraw l-applikazzjoni tad-direttiva lejn l-esternalizzazzjonijiet ta’ l-attivitajiet, jiġifieri l-attribut ta’ funzjoni jew ta’ servizz ta’ intrapriża lejn intrapriża oħra. Il-Kummissjoni tikkunsidra li d-definizzjoni tat-trasferiment li jinsab fid-direttiva, kif interpretata mill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, hija wiesgħa biżżejjed biex tilħaq l-iskop tagħha ta’ protezzjoni tal-ħaddiema f’każ ta’ bdil f’min iħaddem f’sitwazzjonijiet ta’ esternalizzazzjoni differenti ħafna li jistgħu jitfaċċaw fil-kuntesti nazzjonali ta’ ħamsa u għoxrin Stat Membru. Minħabba f’hekk, din tikkunsidra li r-reviżjoni ta’ dan il-kunċett ma tidhirx ġustifikata f’dan l-istadju. Ambitu territorjali Id-direttiva hija applikabbli « jekk u fil-limiti fejn l-intrapriża, l-istabbiliment jew il-parti ta’ l-intrapriża jew ta’ l-istabbiliment li ser ikun trasferit ikun jinsab fl-ambitu territorjali tat-Trattat » (l-Artikolu 1(2)) jew f’pajjiż membru taż-Żona Ekonomika Ewropea (In-Norveġja, l-Iżlanda, il-Liechtenstein) (l-Artikolu 68 tal-ftehim dwar iż-ŻonaEkonomika Ewropea[5]) . Il-Kummissjoni, kif ukoll ċerti Stati Membri (ara l-Anness I, il-mistoqsijiet 1.1-1.4), sostnew li l-applikazzjoni ta’ miżuri nazzjonali biex titwettaq id-direttiva għat-trasferimenti transnazzjonali tista’ toħloq problemi li d-direttiva ma tippermettix li jissolvew. Fil-fatt, id-direttiva, kuntrarjament għall-proposta tal-Kummissjoni ta’ l-1974, ma fihiex dispożizzjonijiet dwar il-kunflitti ta’ liġijiet. Madankollu, ċerti dispożizzjonijiet jirreferu speċifikament għad-dritt nazzjonali applikabbli : pereżempju l-kunċett ta’ ħaddiem, (l-Artikolu 2(1)(d)) jew id-definizzjoni ta’ kuntratt ta’ xogħol (l-Artikolu 2(2)). Bl-istess mod, il-Qorti rreferiet għal-leġislazzjoni ta’ l-Istati Membri biex tiddeċiedi dwar ċerti aspetti ta’ trasferimenti ta’ intrapriżi. Finalment, id-direttiva tħalli ċertu numru ta’ għażliet f’idejn l-Istati Membri. Sabiex id-dritt internazzjonali riżervat u b’mod speċjali il-Konvenzjoni ta’ Ruma [6] jkunu jistgħu jfornu soluzzjonijiet fir-rigward tat-tip ta’ relazzjonijiet individwali ta’ xogħol f’każ ta’ trasferiment transnazzjonali, l-aspetti kollettivi ta’ dawn it-trasferimenti (konvenzjonijiet kollettivi, protezzjoni tar-rappreżentanti tal-ħaddiema, obbligi ta’ informazzjoni u konsultazzjoni) mhumiex regolati. Għaldaqstant, il-Kummissjoni tikkunsidra li s-suġġett ta’ trasferimenti transnazzjonali jista’ ikun l-għan ta’ trattament speċifiku fid-direttiva. ŻAMMA TAD-DRITTIJIET TAL-ĦADDIEMA (L-ARTIKOLI 3-5) Trasferiment tad-drittijiet u l-obbligi lil min jirċievi t-trasferiment Id-drittijiet u l-obbligi li jirriżultaw, għal min jittrasferixxi, ta’ kuntratt tax-xogħol jew relazzjoni tax-xogħol li tkun fis-seħħ fid-data tat-trasferiment huma, fil-fatt ta’ dan ta’ l-aħħar, trasferiti lil min jirċievi t-trasferiment. It-trasferiment ta’ dawn id-drittijiet u l-obbligi jintervjenu awtomatikament mill-uniku fatt ta’ trasferiment ta’ intrapriża u ma jistgħux ikunu subordinati għall-intenzjoni ta’ min jittrasferixxi jew ta’ min jirċievi t-trasferiment jew għall-ftehim tal-ħaddiema, iżda mingħajr ħsara, tad-dritt li għandu ħaddiem li ma jkomplix ir-relazzjoni ta’ xogħol tiegħu ma’ min jirċievi t-trasferiment. It-trasferiment jikkonċerna d-drittjiet kollha tal-ħaddiema maħsuba fl-Artikolu 3(1), li mhumiex koperti bl-eċċezzjonijiet stipulati fl-Artikolu 3(4) (ara l-punt 3.4 ta’ hawn taħt). Responsabbiltà possibbli li torbot lil min jittraferixxi u lil min jirċievi t-trasferiment Fil-prinċipju, min jittrasferixxi huwa ħieles mill-obbligi tiegħu ta’ persuna li tħaddem minħabba l-fatt ta’ trasferiment mingħajr ma dan l-effett ġuridiku jkun subordinat għall-ftehim tal-ħaddiema kkonċernati. L-Istati Membri jistgħu madankollu jiprevedu li min jittraferixxi, wara d-data ta’ trasferiment, jibqa’ jkun responsabbli, solidarjament ma’ min jirċievi t-trasferiment, ta’ l-obbligi li jirriżultaw mill-kuntratt jew minn relazzjoni ta’ xogħol eżistenti fid-data tat-trasferiment. Fil-fatt, erbatax-il Stat Membru jipprevedu din is-solidarjetà ta’ min jittrasferixxi u min jirċievi t-trasferiment (ara l-Anness I, il-punt 2.1). Konvenzjoni kollettiva applikabbli L-Artikolu 3(3), tad-direttiva jimponi fuq min jirċievi t-trasferiment li jħares il-kondizzjonijiet approvati permezz ta’ konvenzjoni kollettiva bl-istess mod li din ipprevediethom għal min jittrasferixxi, sad-data ta’ l-annulament jew ta’ l-iskadenza tal-konvenzjoni kollettiva msemmija jew tad-dħul fis-seħħ jew ta’ l-applikazzjoni ta’ konvenzjoni kolletiva oħra. L-Istati Membri jistgħu jillimitaw il-perjodu taż-żamma tal-kondizzjonijiet tax-xogħol li jirriżultaw mill-konvenzjoni kollettiva sakemm din tkun ta’ perijodu ta’ mhux inqas minn sena. Fi kwalunkwe każ, dan il-limitu ta’ l-aħħar ma jreġġix jekk l-ebda sitwazzjoni msemija qabel ma tibqax fis-seħħ matul il-perijodu ta’ sena wara t-trasferiment. Għaxar Stati Membri għamlu użu minn din l-għażla li tillimita ż-żmien (ara l-anness I, il-punt 2.2). Min jirċievi t-trasferiment mhux marbut ħlief bil-konvezjoni kollettiva li tkun fis-seħħ fil-mument tat-trasferiment ; id-direttiva ma tħarisx il-benefiċċji ipotetiċi li jirriżultaw mill-iżviluppi futuri ta’ konvenzjonijiet kollettivi. F’dan l-istadju, il-Kummissjoni ma tikkunsidrax li kjarifika tad-direttiva kif proposta mill-awtoritajiet tar-Repubblika Slovakka biex titqies is-sitwazzjoni fejn it-trasferiment iwassal għall-applikazzjoni ta’ diversi konvenzjonijiet kollettivi, hija meħtieġa. Fil-fatt, f’tali sitwazzjonijiet, il-konklużjoni ta’ konvenzjoni kollettiva ġdida, skond l-Artikolu 3(3), għandu jwassal għal konsistenza tal-kondizzjonijiet tax-xogħol. Nuqqas ta’ applikazzjoni tad-direttiva għall-ħlasijiet miftiehma barra mir-reġimi legali tas-sigurtà soċjali Ħlief jekk l-Istati Membri jiddisponu b’mod ieħor, it-trasferiment ma japplikax għad-drittijiet tal-ħaddiema fir-rigward ta’ ħlasijiet ta’ xjuħija, ta’ diżabbiltà jew ta’ sopravivenza f’isem ir-reġimi komplementari professjonali jew interprofessjonali ta’ pensjoni li teżisti barra mir-reġimi legali ta’ sigurtà soċjali ta’ l-Istati Membri. B’konsegwenza ta’ dan, l-obbligi ta’ min jittrasferixxi bbażati fuq reġimi mhux legali mhumiex trasferibbli. Fi tlettax-il Stat Membru, dawn id-drittijiet huma trasferibbli bħal kull dritt ieħor, kemm għax huma speċifikatament inklużi, kif ukoll għax mhumiex speċifikament esklużi. Madankollu, il-Kummissjoni ssostni li f’xi Stati Membri, il-fatt li dawn mhumiex speċifikatament inklużi huwa interpretat bħala esklużjoni. (ara l-Anness I, il-punt 2.3). F’dan il-kuntest, għandu jiġi nnotat li fl-20 ta’ Ottubru 2005, il-Kummissjoni ressqet proposta għal direttiva tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill fir-rigward tat-titjib ta’ meta jinġarru d-drittijiet ta’ pensjoni komplementarja [7]. Din il-proposta bħalissa hija s-suġġett ta’ diskussjonijiet interistituzzjonali. Bidliet fil-kondizzjonijiet ta’ xogħol Dment li jkun hemm qbil fejn min jirċievi t-trasferiment jissosstitwixxxi ruħu ma’min jirċievi t-trasferiment min jittrasferixxi u jassumi d-drittijiet u l-obbligi li jirriżultaw mill-kondizzjonijiet ta’ xogħol, id-direttiva ma topponix li min jirċievi t-trasferiment jibdel ir-relazzjoni tax-xogħol safejn id-dritt nazzjonali applikabbli jippermetti dan it-tibdil barra mill-ipoteżi ta’ trasferiment ta’ intrapriża. Jekk il-kuntratt tax-xogħol jew ir-relazzjoni ta’ xogħol jiġi annullat peress li t-trasferiment skond id-direttiva iġib miegħu tibdil sostanzjali tal-kondizzjonijiet ta’ xogħol b’detriment għall-ħaddiem, dan l-annullament huwa kkunsidrat li jkun seħħ minn min iħaddem. Huma l-qrati nazzjonali li jiddeċiedu jekk il-kuntratt ta’ xogħol propost minn min jirċievi t-trasferiment jimplikax tibdil sostanzjali tal-kondizzjonijiet tax-xogħol b’detriment għall-ħaddiema. Il-Kummissjoni ma tqisx li huwa xieraq li taċċetta f’dan l-istadju l-proposta tar-Renju Unit li tintroduċi l-possibbiltà għal min iħaddem li jibdel, bi ftehim ma’ l-impjegat, il-kuntratt tax-xogħol biex jiġu armonizzati l-kondizzjonijiet tax-xogħol bejn il-ħaddiema eżistenti u dawk trasferiti sakemm tali tibdiliet meħudin globalment ma jwasslux li l-kondizzjonijiet tax-xogħol tal-ħaddiema trasferiti isiru agħar. Fil-fatt, il-Kummissjoni tikkunsidra li wieħed jista’ jasal għal tali armonizzazzjoni permezz ta’ konvenzjonijiet kollettivi li, bl-intervent ta’ rappreżentanti tal-ħaddiema, joffru garanziji xierqa lill-ħaddiema trasferiti. Protezzjoni kontra s-sensja It-trasferiment ta’ intrapriża, ta’ stabbiliment jew ta’ partijiet ta’ intrapriża jew stabbiliment ma jikkostitwixxix fih innifsu raġuni għas-sensja għall-konċedent jew għal min jirċievi t-trasferiment, iżda din id-dispożizzjoni mhix ostaklu għas-sensji għal raġunijiet ekonomiċi, tekniċi, jew ta’ organizzazzjoni li jimplikaw bidliet fil-pjan għall-impjiegi. Għaldaqstant, id-direttiva tillimita ruħha li tipprjobixxi s-sensji fejn it-trasferiment huwa l-uniku raġuni. L-iskop tad-direttiva fir-rigward tas-sensji, jista’ jkun ristrett mid-dritt rikonoxxut lill-Istati Membri li ma jestendux il-protezzjoni prevista għall-« ċerti kategoriji speċifiċi ta’ ħaddiema li mhux koperti bil-leġislazzjoni jew bil-prattika ta’ l-Istati Membri fir-rigward ta’ protezzjoni kontra s-sensji ». Hemm biss erba’ Stati Membri li jagħmlu użu minn din il-possibbiltà (ara l-Anness I, il-punt 2.4). Il-ħaddiema mogħtija s-sensja irregolarment minn min jittrasferixxi ftit taż-żmien qabel it-trasferiment ta’ l-intrapriża u mhux meħudin minn min jirċievi t-trasferiment jistgħu jieħdu passi kontra dan ta’ l-aħħar minħabba l-irregolarità ta’ din is-sensja. Id-dritt tal-ħaddiem li ma jkomplix ir-relazzjoni ta’ xogħol tiegħu ma’ min jirċievi t-trasferiment L-għan tad-direttiva huwa li jiġu mħarsa d-drittijiet tal-ħaddiema f’każ ta’ bdil f’ta’ min iħaddem filwaqt li jagħtihom il-possibbiltà li jkomplu jaħdmu għal min jirċievi t-trasferiment bl-istess kondizzjonijiet bħal dawk maqbula ma’ min jitrasferixxi. Madankollu, l-iskop finali tiegħu mhuwiex li jiġi ggarantit is-segwitu tal-kuntratt konkluż ma’ min jitrasferixxi meta l-ħaddiem ma jixtieqx ikompli jaħdem ma’ min jirċievi t-trasferiment. Fl-ipoteżi fejn il-ħaddiem jiddeċiedi totalment minn rajh li ma jżommx mal-kuntratt jew ir-relazzjoni ta’ xogħol ma’ min jirċievi t-trasferiment, huma l-Istati Membri li jiddeċiedu xi jsir minn dan il-kuntratt jew relazzjoni. Dawn jistgħu, notevolment, iqisu li, f’tali każ, l-annulament tal-kuntratt jew tar-relazzjoni tax-xogħol tkun fil-fatt, meqjusa li tkun ġiet kemm mill-ħaddiem kif ukoll minn min iħaddem. Jistgħu wkoll jiddeċiedu li l-kuntratt jew ir-relazzjoni ta’ xogħol għandu jibqa’ f’idejn min jittrasferixxi. Trasferimenti li jitwettqu fil-qafas ta’ proċedura ta’ falliment Sabiex tiġi ggarantita s-sopravivenza ta’ intrapriża falluti, l-Artikolu 5 tad-direttiva jagħti ċerta flessibbiltà lill-Istati Membri. Fil-prinċipju, l-Artikoli 3 u 4 tad-direttiva ma japplikawx għall-proċeduri ta’ falliment miftuħa fid-dawl tal-likwidazzjoni tal-beni ta’ min jittrasferixxi taħt il-kontroll ta’ awtorità pubblika kompetenti. Madankollu, meta dawn iż-żewġ Artikoli jiġu applikati taħt proċedura ta’ falliment taħt il-kontroll ta’ awtorità pubblika kompetenti, l-Istati Membri jistgħu jipprevedu, skond l-Artikolu 5, il-paragrafu 2 : a) li ċerti obbligi ta’ min jittrasferixxi ma jiġux trasferiti lil min jirċievi t-trasferiment fil-kondizzjonijiet spjegati f’dan l-Artikolu jew b) li l-kondizzjonijiet ta’ impjieg ta’ ħaddiem ikunu modifikati f’ċerti kondizzjoniet. Ħdax-il Stat Membru japplikaw id-dispożizzjonijiet nazzjonali li jittrasponu l-artikoli 3 u 4 tad-direttiva għat-trasferimenti meta l-konċedent jagħmel użu minn proċedura ta’ falliment. Sitt Stati Membri għamlu użu mill-possibbiltajiet offruti mill-Artikolu 5(2) (ara l-Anness I, il-punti 2.6 u 2.7). F’dak li jikkonċerna l-effetti prattiċi ta’ dawn id-dispożizzjonijiet, l-Istati Membri m’għandhomx informazzjoni li skond dawn in-numru ta’ intrapriżi falluti li jsalvaw seta’ kiber minħabba l-użu ta’ dawn id-derogi (ara l-Anness I, il-punt 2.8). Trasferiment ta’ min jittrasferixxi f’sitwazzjoni ta’ kriżi ekonomika serja L-Italja huwa l-uniku Stat Membru li fis-17 ta’ Lulju 1998, kellu leġislazzjoni nazzjonali li tiddefinixxi sitwazzjoni ta’ kriżi ekonomika serja li tissostitwixxi l-kondizzjonijiet ta’ l-Artikolu 5(3), u li jistgħu għalhekk b’mod leġittimu jawtorizzaw il-modifika ta’ kondizzjonijiet ta’ xogħol konformi ma’ l-Artikolu 5(2), il-punt b). Madankollu, il-Kummissjoni tikkunsidra li l-leġislazzjoni Taljana tmur ferm ’il bogħod minn din is-sempliċi modifika ta’ kondizzjonijiet ta’ xogħol, minħabba li din tinvolvi l-esklużjoni ta’ ħaddiema ta’ intrapriżi fi kriżi mill-benefiċċju ta’ l-Artikoli 3 u 4 tad-direttiva. F’dawn il-kondizzjonijiet, il-Kummissjoni ddeċidiet li tqiegħed lill-Italja fi stat li tippreżenta l-osservazzjonijiet tagħha dwar dan is-suġġett konformi ma’ l-Artikolu 226 KE (Vjolazzjoni Nru 2005/2433). F’dan il-kuntest it-tfassil ta’ rapport dwar l-effetti ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni kif stipulata fit-tieni inċiż ta’ l-Artikolu 5(3), huwa bla skop. PROTEZZJONI TAL-FUNZJONIJIET TAR-RAPPREżENTANTI TAL-ħADDIEMA (L-ARTIKOLU 6) L-Artikolu 6 tad-Direttiva jimmira li jiżgura l-kontinwità tal-funzjoni tar-rappreżentanza u ta’ protezzjoni tal-persuni kkonċernati. Rigward il-kontinwità tal-funzjoni ta’ rappreżentanza, m’għandux jintesa li jekk l-istabbiliment trasferit iżomm l-awtonomija tiegħu, fi kliem ieħor jibqa’ jeżisti bħala unità ta’ tħaddim distinta, u ma jkunx assorbit minn struttura aktar komplessa, l-istatut u l-funzjoni tar-rappreżentanti jew tar-rappreżentanza tal-ħaddiema kkonċernati milquta mit-trasferiment, kif stabbiliti mil-leġislazzjoni nazzjonali ta’ l-Istati Membri, għandhom jibqgħu mħarsa. Madankollu, din id-dispożizzjoni ma tapplikax jekk b’mod konformi mal-leġislazzjoni nazzjonali, il-kondizzjonijiet meħtieġa għan-nominazzjoni ta’ rappreżentanti tal-ħaddiema jibqgħu l-istess. Ir-rappreżentanti tal-ħaddiema konċernati milquta minn trasferiment li l-mandat tiegħu jiskadi minħabba l-istess trasferiment « jibqgħu jibbenefikaw mill-miżuri ta’ protezzjoni maħsuba mid-dispożizzjoni leġislattivi, regolatorji u amministrattivi jew il-prattika ta’ l-Istati Membri ». INFORMAZZJONI U KONSULTAZZJONI (L-ARTIKOLU 7) Min jittrasferixxi u min jirċievi t-trasferiment huma marbutin li jfornu ċertu numru ta’ informazzjonijiet lir-rappreżentanti tal-ħaddiema rispettivi tagħhom. Waqt li l-obbligu li jinformaw huwa ġenerali, dak li għandu x’jaqsam maż-żamma ta’ konsultazzjonijiet huwa limitat. Dan l-aħħar obbligu jeżisti sakemm min jittrasferixxi jew min jirċievi t-trasferiment jipprevedu miżuri dwar l-impjegati tagħhom, pereżempju nuqqas ta’ persunal. Il-konsultazzjoni ssir « bil-għan li jinkiseb ftehim». L-Istati Membri huma marbutin li jieħdu l-miżuri utli kollha sabiex ir-rappreżentanti tal-ħaddiema jkunu nominati fid-dawl ta’ l-informazzjoni u tal-konsultazzjoni stipulata fl-Artikolu 7. F’dan il-każ, id-direttiva tagħti lill-Istati Membri wisa’ bizzejjed biex jiġu definiti l-modalitajiet ta’ nominazzjoni tar-rappreżentanti tal-ħaddiema. L-obbligi ta’ informazzjoni u ta’ konsultazzjoni japplikaw indipendentement jekk id-deċiżjoni dwar it-trasferiment tittieħed minn min iħaddem jew minn intrapriża li tikkontrollah. L-Istati Membri jistgħu jillimitaw l-obbligi msemmija hawn fuq għall-intrapriżi jew għal stabbilimenti li jissodisfaw, f’dak li jikkonċerna n-numru ta’ impjegati, il-kondizzjonijiet għal għażla jew għal nominazzjoni ta’ entità kolleġġjali li tirrappreżenta lill-ħaddiema. Sitt Stati Membri għamlu użu minn din il-possibbiltà (ara l-Anness I, il-Punt 3.2) F’kwalunkwe każ, fin-nuqqas ta’ rappreżentanti tal-ħaddiema f’intrapriża jew fi stabbiliment, il-ħaddiema konċernati għandhom jiġu informati minn qabel. L-awtoritajiet Franċiżi jqisu li informazzjoni individwali ta’ l-impjegati, minkejja l-informazzjoni dovuta lir-rappreżentanti tal-ħaddiema, għandha tkun organizzata minn min jirċievi t-trasferiment li jħaddem dwar id-drittijiet kollha li jsiru applikabbli wara t-trasferiment. Madankollu l-Kummissjoni tikkunsidra li l-obbligi ta’ informazzjoni eżistenti huma bizzejjed biex jgħinu lill-ħaddiema fid-difiża tad-drittijiet tagħhom, mingħajr ma timponi restrizzjonijiet eċċessivi fuq min iħaddem. Madankollu, l-Istati Membri huma ħielsa jekk iqisu li hu xieraq, li jestendu dawn l-obbligi fil-livell nazzjonali skond l-Artikolu 8 tad-direttiva. Għaldaqstant, il-Kummissjoni tikkunsidra li reviżjoni ta’ direttiva dwar dan il-punt ma tidhrix iġġustifikata f’dan l-istadju. KONKLUżJONI Kważi tletin sena wara l-adozzjoni tad-Direttiva 77/187/KEE, il-Kummissjoni tikkunsidra li tkompli żżomm rwol fondamentali fil-protezzjoni tad-drittijiet tal-ħaddiema. Dan it-test daħħal, fl-ordnijiet ġuridiċi ta’ ħafna Stati Membri li ma jirrikonoxxuhx, il-prinċipju tal-ħarsien tal-kuntratti tax-xogħol minkejja bidliet fil-personalità ġuridika tal-persuna li tħaddem. Barra minn hekk, ir-reviżjoni li saret fl-1998 ippermettiet, min-naħa l-waħda, li tispeċifika l-kunċett ta’ trasferiment fid-dawl ta’ ġurisprudenza wiesgħa tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja u, min-naħa l-oħra, li tagħti ċerta flessibbiltà lill-Istati Membri fl-applikazzjoni ta’ ċerti dispożizzjonijiet, speċjalment fil-każijiet ta’ falliment ta’ min jittrasferixxi. Biex jinstab bilanċ ġust bejn il-protezzjoni tal-ħaddiem u l-libertà li tkun segwita attività ekonomika, id-direttiva kkontribwiet bil-kbir biex tirrendi aktar aċċettabbli, mil-lat soċjali, numru kbir ta’ operazzjonijiet ta’ rikostruzzjoni fl-Ewropa. Madankollu, il-Kummissjoni tikkunsidra li n-nuqqas ta’ trattament espliċitu tal-kwistjoni ta’ trasferimenti transkonfinali bid-direttiva, li tipprevedi madankollu l-applikazzjoni tagħha nnifisha għat-trasferimenti li permezz tagħhom l-intrapriża li għandha tiġi ttrasferita toħroġ mill-ambitu territorjali tat-Trattat, tista’ tnissel insigurtà fil-kap ta’ dawk li jħaddmu u tal-ħaddiema. Barra minn hekk, il-Kummissjoni tikkunsidra li t-tkabbir ta’ l-UE u l-konsolidazzjoni tas-suq interjuri, il-globalizzazzjoni u l-iffaċilitar ta’ l-attivitajiet transkonfinali bir-regolamenti dwar is-soċjetà Ewropea[8] u dwar is-soċjetà kooperattiva Ewropea[9] jew bid-direttiva dwar il-fużjonijiet transkonfinali[10] huma fatturi li jistgħu jkabbru l-fenomenu tat-trasferimenti transkonfinali. Għaldaqstant, il-Kummissjoni tikkunsidra li d-direttiva tista’ tkun modifikata biex tiċċara dan il-punt u b’hekk tikkontribwixxi għat-titjib ta’ l- acquis communautaire . Għal dan il-għan, din għandha l-ħsieb li tikkonsulta lill-imsieħba soċjali skond l-Artikolu 138 l-paragrafu 2 tat-Trattat. Technical annex Overview of the replies to the questionnaire on Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses Questions 1.1 and 1.2 | Do the national measures adopted in your country to implement the Directive apply to transfers of undertakings from your country to another Member State or to another country of the EEA (Article 1(2))? / to countries outside the EEA (Article 1(2))? | Belgium | They apply to any employer subject to the 1968 Law on Collective Agreements. In the case of cross-border transfers only the party located in Belgium will be subject to Belgian law. | Czech Republic | They apply to all labour law relationships subject to the Labour Code. Changes of place of work in connection with transfers involve termination of the employment relationship for organisational reasons with three months' notice and entitlement to severance pay. | Denmark | Yes, if the conditions are met for the employees concerned. | Germany | Yes, provided German law is applicable under private international law. | Estonia | Yes, provided the employment contract is concluded under Estonian law. | Greece | The business to be transferred must be situated within the EU. | Spain | Yes. The starting point is the Rome Convention. The applicable law will depend on the time of transfer: before or after the change of place of work. | France | In principle yes, but account should be taken of possible mobility clauses. | Ireland | Yes. They are not specifically excluded. | Italy | Yes, to the countries where the Rome Convention applies. | Cyprus | Yes, no special exclusion. | Latvia | Yes. | Lithuania | Yes. | Luxembourg | Yes, they apply to undertakings located in Luxembourg. | Hungary | Yes. Hungary's provisions apply to all employment relationships on the basis of which work is performed in Hungary and also to work performed temporarily abroad. | Malta | Yes, they apply to undertakings situated in the EEA. | Netherlands | Yes, there is no special exclusion. | Austria | Yes, but not outside Austria. Territoriality principle. | Poland | No specific provisions. Need to use international private law. | Portugal | Yes, by virtue of the Rome Convention. | Slovenia | Yes. Labour law applies to employment relationships between employers that have their registered office or residence in Slovenia and workers employed by them. It also applies to employment relationships between foreign employers and workers that are based on an employment contract in Slovenia. | Slovak Republic | Yes, no special exclusion. | Finland | No specific provision. | Sweden | Not explicitly addressed. It would be for the ECJ to rule. | United Kingdom | Yes, to transfers of businesses situated in the UK immediately before the transfer. | Iceland | They Act apply to all countries of the EEA, to the Faeroe Islands and to member states of the Convention establishing the European Free Trade Association. | Liechtenstein | They do not make a difference between transfers of undertakings from Liechtenstein to another EEA Member State or to countries outside the EEA. For cross-border transfers § 1173a Art. 43 ff ABGB and the regulations of the IPRG have to be considered. | Norway | The issue of cross border transfers not explicitly addressed in the national rules or in the preparatory works. | Question 1.3 | Are the provisions of the Directive suitable for the cross-border transfers mentioned in points 1.1 and 1.2? | Belgium | There should be no major problems in case of transfers within the EEA. Possible problems in the case of non-EEA countries. | Czech Republic | Yes. | Denmark | Yes. | Germany | Yes. | Estonia | No problems detected so far. | Greece | Yes. | Spain | The problems raised by the Directive are general (not specific to cross-border transfers) and stem from the diversity of situations that can arise. | France | No. The absence of express provisions on conflict of law creates problems. | Ireland | No. Greater clarity is needed about the applicable law, jurisdiction and enforcement. | Italy | The Rome Convention suffices. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No problems detected so far. | Lithuania | Yes. | Luxembourg | Yes. | Hungary | No problem so far. | Malta | No obstacle to application of the national rules implementing the Directive. | Netherlands | No practical experience. | Austria | Yes. | Poland | Yes. The Rome Convention suffices. | Portugal | The Rome Convention applies. | Slovenia | Slovene labour law does not cover enforcement of rights in case of cross-border transfers. It would be necessary to apply the rules of the different legal systems involved. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | The Directive should state that it applies to cross-border situations. | Sweden | No practical experience. | United Kingdom | There would intrinsically be greater difficulties in enforcing rights against foreign-based transferees. | Iceland | No particular problems or conflicts that have arisen in connection with these specific provisions | Liechtenstein | Yes | Norway | As long as there is no court cases on cross border transfers in Norway, we do not know the effects of the provisions in the Directive (or the Norwegian implementation of the Directive). A discussion should be based on the eventual problems that do occur in practice. Therefore Norway sees the need for a study of the effects of the Directive when it comes to protection of workers in the case of cross border transfers. | Question 1.4 | Do you consider that cross-border transfers from your country or to your country are increasing in number or are likely to increase in number? | Belgium | They are likely to increase. | Czech Republic | Likely to increase. | Denmark | Increase expected. | Germany | Likely to increase. | Estonia | The employers' confederation has predicted an increase. | Greece | Currently no cases. | Spain | Likely to increase. | France | No information available. | Ireland | Increase expected. | Italy | No specific information available. | Cyprus | Not likely to increase due to the geographical characteristics of the island. | Latvia | No information available. | Lithuania | No information available. | Luxembourg | No such trend has been noted. | Hungary | No data on transfers. Stabilisation of the number of foreign companies in Hungary. Increase in the number of Hungarian companies abroad. | Malta | No data available. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | Likely to increase. | Poland | No cases reported. Difficult to speculate. | Portugal | No cases reported. | Slovenia | Likely to increase. | Slovak Republic | Likely to increase. | Finland | Likely to increase. | Sweden | No statistics available. | United Kingdom | No statistics available, but likely to increase. | Iceland | No significant changes have been noted. | Liechtenstein | There are no statistics concerning cross-border transfers. | Norway | In Norway there are no specific statistics on "transfers of undertakings" available. | Question 1.5 | Do the national measures adopted in your country to implement the Directive apply to seagoing vessels (Article 1(3))? | Belgium | No. | Czech Republic | Yes. | Denmark | No. | Germany | Yes. | Estonia | Yes. | Greece | No. | Spain | Yes. | France | No. | Ireland | No. | Italy | Yes, except for possible specific rules in the Navigation Code. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | Yes. | Luxembourg | No. | Hungary | Yes. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | Yes. | Poland | Yes. | Portugal | Yes. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | Specific provisions in force. | Sweden | Yes. | United Kingdom | Yes, but there are limitations if a UK-registered ship situated in the UK immediately before the transfer ceases to be UK-registered as a result of the transfer. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | The Principality of Liechtenstein being a midland, the exemption in Article 1 (3) of the Directive has not been implemented into national law . | Norway | No. | Question 2.1 | Do your national provisions provide for joint liability from transferor and transferee in respect of obligations which arose before the date of transfer from a contract of employment or an employment relationship existing on the date of the transfer (Article 3(1))? | Belgium | Yes, except debts from supplementary pension schemes. | Czech Republic | No. | Denmark | No. | Germany | Yes, for debts which arose before the transfer and are due to be met within one year after the transfer. | Estonia | Yes, for debts which arose before the transfer and are due to be met within one year after the transfer. | Greece | Yes. | Spain | Yes, for 3 years after the transfer (or 4 years in the case of social security debts). | France | Yes, except in the cases of insolvency proceedings and of successive contracts without any direct contractual link between transferor and transferee. | Ireland | No. | Italy | Yes. | Cyprus | No, only by agreement between transferor and transferee. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | No. Only subsidiary responsibility for three years. | Luxembourg | Yes. | Hungary | Yes, provided claims are enforced within one year after the transfer. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | Yes, for one year after the transfer. | Austria | Yes. | Poland | Only for transfers of parts of undertakings. Not for transfers of whole undertakings. | Portugal | Yes, for one year after the transfer. | Slovenia | Only for claims made prior to the transfer and claims due to termination of contracts. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | Yes. | Sweden | Yes, except insolvency situations or old-age, invalidity or survivors' benefits. | United Kingdom | No, except: a) compensation for failure to consult or inform and b) in the case of public employers, liabilities for injuries or disease which arose before the transfer. | Iceland | Yes. | Liechtenstein | Yes. | Norway | Yes. | Question 2.2 | Do your national provisions implementing Article 3(3) limit the period for observing, following the transfer, the terms and conditions agreed in a collective agreement? If the reply is yes, please indicate the period. | Belgium | No. | Czech Republic | No. | Denmark | No. | Germany | Yes: one year. | Estonia | No. | Greece | No. | Spain | No. | France | Yes: one year plus three months' notice. | Ireland | No. | Italy | No. | Cyprus | Minimum period for observing any collective agreement is one year. | Latvia | Provisions of any collective agreement cannot be amended to the detriment of the employee for one year. | Lithuania | No, except in bankruptcy proceedings. | Luxembourg | No. | Hungary | Yes: one year. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | Yes: one year. | Poland | Yes: one year. | Portugal | Yes: one year. | Slovenia | Yes: one year. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | No. | Sweden | Yes: one year. | United Kingdom | No. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | Yes: One year. | Norway | Yes. According to Section 16-2, 2nd paragraph, the transferee must observe the terms and conditions agreed to in a collective agreement prior to the transfer, unless the transferee explicitly declares in writing within three weeks of the transfer, that he does not want to be bound by the agreement. However, the transferred workers are entitled to keep their individual conditions of employment that arise from the collective agreement agreed to by the transferor, until the collective agreement expires, or a new collective agreement is entered into by the transferee and the transferred employees. | Question 2.3 | Does the transfer of rights and obligations under the national provisions implementing paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 3 apply in relation to employees' rights to old-age, invalidity or survivors' benefits under supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes outside the statutory social security schemes (Article 3(4)(a))? | Belgium | No: specifically excluded unless there is a collective agreement to the contrary. | Czech Republic | Those schemes are not regulated by legislation in the Czech Republic. At present there is only legislation on supplementary pension schemes with a State contribution. | Denmark | No, not specifically included. | Germany | Yes. | Estonia | Yes: no specific rules. | Greece | Yes. | Spain | Yes: specifically included. | France | Yes. | Ireland | No, not specifically included. | Italy | Yes: all rights are transferred. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | Yes, not specifically excluded. | Lithuania | Yes, if they are part of a collective agreement. | Luxembourg | No, not specifically included. | Hungary | No. The supplementary pension funds regulated in Hungary are not company or inter-company pension schemes since they are not linked to employment. | Malta | Yes. | Netherlands | Yes, unless the transferee itself operates a pension scheme, in which case it can choose which of the two. | Austria | Yes, but the transferee has the right to object to the transfer sufficiently in advance. | Poland | Yes. | Portugal | Yes. Since they may be established by collective agreement, they are transferred in the same way. | Slovenia | No, there is no regulation on this matter. | Slovak Republic | No. They are not organised/managed by the employer. | Finland | Yes, they are considered employment benefits that are transferred just like all other rights and obligations. | Sweden | No. However, if they are established in a collective agreement they are transferred in the same way. | United Kingdom | No, but if there is a transfer the transferee has to provide a minimum level of pension provision to employees who were entitled to participate in a scheme run by the transferor. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | No. | Norway | Yes, they are transferred to the new employer. However, the transferee has the option of applying existing pension schemes to the transferred employees after the transfer. In situations where the pension schemes cannot be transferred (e.g. transfers from public to private sector, where membership in the State pension fund cannot be upheld), the transferee is obliged to ensure that the transferred workers' are covered by another group pension scheme. | Question 2.4 | Has the possibility laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 4(1)[11] been used in your country? If the reply is yes, in which way? | Belgium | No. | Czech Republic | No. | Denmark | No. | Germany | No. | Estonia | No. | Greece | No. | Spain | Yes: for senior managers. | France | No. | Ireland | No. | Italy | No. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | No. | Luxembourg | No. | Hungary | Yes: for fixed-term employment contracts. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | No. | Poland | No. | Portugal | No. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | No. | Sweden | Yes: for managers, relatives of the employer, employees working in the employer's household and employees who are employed for work with special employment support or in sheltered employment. | United Kingdom | Yes: for employees who do not have one year's qualifying service with their employer. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | No. | Norway | No. | Question 2.5 | Do your national provisions implementing Articles 3 and 4 apply to transfers of undertakings where the transferor is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings or any analogous insolvency proceedings mentioned in Article 5(1)? | Belgium | Not in cases of bankruptcy ("faillite"), but they apply in cases of pre-bankruptcy ("concordat judiciaire"). | Czech Republic | Yes. | Denmark | Yes. | Germany | Yes. | Estonia | Yes, if the trustee transfers employment contracts. | Greece | No. | Spain | Yes. | France | Not in cases of administration ("redressement judiciaire") or receivership ("liquidation judiciaire") but they apply in cases of preservation ("sauvegarde"). | Ireland | No. | Italy | No. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | Yes. However, the administrator can dismiss employees. | Luxembourg | Yes. | Hungary | Yes. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | No. | Poland | Yes. | Portugal | Yes. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | No, unless the transferor and transferee were under the same control. | Sweden | No. | United Kingdom | Yes. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | No. | Norway | No. | Question 2.6 | Has the possibility laid down in Article 5(2)(a)[12] been used in your country? If the reply is yes, in which way? | Belgium | Yes. It is provided for in Article 8 bis of collective agreement (CCT) No 32 bis in cases of pre-bankruptcy ("concordat judiciaire"). | Czech Republic | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Denmark | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Germany | Yes, through Court interpretations of national law. | Estonia | No. | Greece | No. | Spain | Yes. | France | Yes. | Ireland | No. | Italy | No. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Luxembourg | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Hungary | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | No. | Poland | Yes. The purchaser of a bankrupt company purchases it free of liabilities and is not responsible for the obligations of the bankrupt. | Portugal | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | No. | Sweden | No. | United Kingdom | Yes, for certain pre-existing debts. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | No. | Norway | No. | Question 2.7 | Has the possibility laid down in Article 5(2)(b)[13] been used in your country? If the reply is yes, in which way? | Belgium | Yes. It is provided for in Article 8 bis of collective agreement (CCT) No 32 bis in cases of pre-bankruptcy ("concordat judiciaire"). | Czech Republic | No. | Denmark | No. | Germany | Yes: the insolvency administrator can give notice of dismissals in view of the transfer. | Estonia | No. | Greece | No. | Spain | Yes. | France | No. | Ireland | No. | Italy | Yes, through use of the possibility granted by Article 5(3). | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | Nothing stops parties from concluding a collective agreement to this effect. | Luxembourg | Yes. | Hungary | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | No. | Poland | No. | Portugal | No. Normal rules on transfers apply. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | No. | Sweden | No. | United Kingdom | Yes. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | No. | Norway | No. | Question 2.8 | Do you consider that the number of insolvent undertakings that have survived in your country has increased thanks to the use of the derogations provided for in Article 5(2)? | Belgium | No information available. | Czech Republic | N.A. | Denmark | N.A. | Germany | The legislation in place was already in force in Germany before. Therefore no change has been noted. | Estonia | N.A. | Greece | N.A. | Spain | No information available, but it appears to have been useful. | France | N.A. | Ireland | N.A. | Italy | Yes, but there are no specific data. | Cyprus | N.A. | Latvia | N.A. | Lithuania | N.A. | Luxembourg | No information available. | Hungary | N.A. | Malta | N.A. | Netherlands | N.A. | Austria | N.A. | Poland | No information available. | Portugal | N.A. | Slovenia | N.A. | Slovak Republic | N.A. | Finland | N.A. | Sweden | N.A. | United Kingdom | Too early to say. Changes have only just been introduced. | Iceland | N.A. | Liechtenstein | N.A. | Norway | N.A. | Question 3.1 | Has the possibility laid down in Article 7(3)[14] been used in your country? If the reply is yes, in which way? | Belgium | No. | Czech Republic | No. | Denmark | No. | Germany | Yes. | Estonia | No. | Greece | No. | Spain | No. | France | No. | Ireland | No. | Italy | No. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | No. | Luxembourg | No. No such recourse to an arbitration board is provided for in Luxembourg. | Hungary | No. There is no such arbitration board. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | No. | Poland | No. No such recourse to an arbitration board is provided for in Poland. | Portugal | No. No such recourse to an arbitration board is provided for in Portugal. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | No. | Sweden | No. | United Kingdom | No. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | No. | Norway | No. The Norwegian legislation does not provide for any such arbitration board. | Question 3.2 | Has the possibility laid down in Article 7(5)[15] been used in your country? If the reply is yes, in which way? | Belgium | No. | Czech Republic | No. | Denmark | No. | Germany | Yes: undertakings with more than 20 employees. | Estonia | No. | Greece | No. | Spain | No limit for information purposes. For consultation purposes in certain circumstances: undertakings with more than 6 employees. | France | Yes. | Ireland | No. | Italy | No. | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | Consultations take place only with employees' representatives (who are elected in undertakings with more than 5 workers). | Lithuania | No. | Luxembourg | No. | Hungary | No. | Malta | Yes: undertakings with more than 20 employees. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | No. | Poland | No. | Portugal | No. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | No. | Finland | Yes: the Act on Cooperation within Undertakings applies to enterprises with at least 30 employees. | Sweden | No. | United Kingdom | No. | Iceland | No. | Liechtenstein | No. | Norway | No. | Questions 4.1 and 4.2 | Do you consider that any provision in the Directive needs clarification or improvement? If the reply is yes, please specify which provisions and the problems encountered. Do you have any concrete drafting proposal to overcome the problems identified? | Belgium | No. | Czech Republic | No. | Denmark | No. | Germany | Estonia | The Estonian Employers' Confederation considers that the broad range of possible interpretations of Article 1 of the Directive cause legal uncertainty and court actions. The Confederation of Estonian Trade Unions sees no need to amend the Directive. | Greece | No. | Spain | No. | France | In addition to the information due to employees' representatives, each employee should be informed by the transferee about his or her rights after the transfer. | Ireland | Yes. The Directive does not address the issue of outsourcing. The exclusions arising as a result of application of the principles of the Süzen ECJ ruling are unfair and particularly victimise low-paid workers. It is essential that measures be introduced to recognise that the work performed by a worker is an economic asset with potential to generate profit. | Italy | Cyprus | No. | Latvia | No. | Lithuania | No. | Luxembourg | No. | Hungary | No. | Malta | No. | Netherlands | No. | Austria | No. | Poland | No. | Portugal | The issue of cross-border transfers creates doubts. | Slovenia | No. | Slovak Republic | Yes, it is necessary to clarify Article 3(3) of the Directive in cases where several legal regimes under several collective agreements are transferred to an acquirer (transferee employer) and each of the collective agreements will have come into force on a different date. Is this a case of employee discrimination by the acquirer (transferee employer)? Does the collective agreement grant the most favourable conditions to employees, e.g. after three undertakings are merged if applicable to all employees of a newly established (merged) undertaking? | Finland | Yes. Cross-border application of the Directive could be clarified. | Sweden | No. Possible problems and solutions could be discussed within the Group of Experts. | United Kingdom | The UK Government considers that Article 3(1), as interpreted by the ECJ and the UK courts, places unnecessary and unhelpful restrictions on employers and employees preventing them from agreeing to vary employment contracts where the purpose of the variation is to harmonise the terms and conditions of transferring employees with those of employees already employed by the transferee. Because such harmonisation is not currently permissible, transferees are required to operate at least two sets of terms and conditions following a transfer. And because some transferees (especially those providing contract services to employers) can be involved in many transfers, there is scope for three of more sets of terms and conditions to apply across a group of employees doing the same or similar jobs. The following new second subparagraph should be inserted in Article 3(1): “This Article shall not prevent the employer and his employee whose contract of employment is, or will be, transferred from agreeing a variation of that contract by reason of such transfer, provided the sole or principal purpose of the variation is to effect harmonisation and provided the employee is no worse off overall as a result. “Harmonisation” means a measure intended to increase uniformity in the terms and conditions of employees, or prospective employees, of the transferee.” The existing second subparagraph of Article 3(1) would then become the third subparagraph. | UEAPME | No. | ETUC | Some of the measures safeguarding employees' rights provided for in the Directive (Articles 3(1), 3(2), 6 and 7) should be extended to cases of change of ownership through share purchases. | Iceland | The provisions are generally clear. It is up to the courts to interpret the provisions if problems or conflicts arise. | Liechtenstein | For the moment, there is no need for clarification or improvement. | Norway | Norway first of all sees the need for more information of the practical problems with cross border transfers. A discussion should be based on the problems that do occur in cases in practical life, and especially what kind of solutions the social partners tend to reach through negotiations instead of going to court. Norway therefore welcomes the result/report from the Commission of the effect of the Directive. Hopefully the report will identify eventually problems and/or needs for clarifications or improvements that might be of interest to discuss in the group of experts in order to find possible solutions. | [1] ĠU L 82 tat-22.3.2001, p. 16 [2] ĠU L 61 tal-05.3.77, p. 26. Din id-Direttiva hija waħda mill-miżuri previsti fil-programm ta’ azzjoni soċjali KEE tal-21 ta’ Jannar 1974. [3] ĠU L 201 tas-17.7.1998, p. 88. [4] Id-Direttiva 2002/14/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tal-11 ta’ Marzu 2002 li tistabbilixxi qafas ġenerali dwar l-informazzjoni u l-konsultazzjoni tal-ħaddiema fil-Komunità Ewropea, ĠU L 80 tat-23.3.2002, p. 29. [5] ĠU L 1 tat-3.1.1994, p. 3. [6] Il-Konvenzjoni ta’ Ruma ta’ l-1980 dwar il-liġi applikabbli għall-obbligi kuntrattwali (verżjoni konsolidata), ĠU C 27 tas-26.1.1998, p. 34-46. [7] COM (2005) 507 finali [8] Ir-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 2157/2001 tat-8 ta’ Ottubru 2001 relatat ma’ l-istat tas-Soċjetà Ewropea (SE) (ĠU L 294 ta’ l-10.11.2001, p. 1) [9] Ir-Regolament (KE) Nru 1435/2003 tal-Kunsill tat-22 ta’ Lulju 2003 relatat ma’ l-istat tas-soċjetà Kooperattiva Ewropea (SEC) (ĠU L 207 tat-18.8.2003, p. 1) [10] Id-Direttiva 2005/56/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tas-26 ta’ Ottubru 2005 dwar il-fużjonijiet transkonfinali tas-soċjetajiet ta’ kapitali (ĠU L 310 tal-25.11.2005, p.1) [11] The transfer of the undertaking, business or part of the undertaking or business shall not in itself constitute grounds for dismissal by the transferor or the transferee. This provision shall not stand in the way of dismissals that may take place for economic, technical or organisational reasons entailing changes in the workforce.Member States may provide that the first subparagraph shall not apply to certain specific categories of employees who are not covered by the laws or practice of the Member States in respect of protection against dismissal. [12] Where Articles 3 and 4 apply to a transfer during insolvency proceedings which have been opened in relation to a transferor (whether or not those proceedings have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor) and provided that such proceedings are under the supervision of a competent public authority (which may be an insolvency practitioner determined by national law) a Member State may provide that:(a) notwithstanding Article 3(1), the transferor's debts arising from any contracts of employment or employment relationships and payable before the transfer or before the opening of the insolvency proceedings shall not be transferred to the transferee, provided that such proceedings give rise, under the law of that Member State, to protection at least equivalent to that provided for in situations covered by Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. [13] Where Articles 3 and 4 apply to a transfer during insolvency proceedings which have been opened in relation to a transferor (whether or not those proceedings have been instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor) and provided that such proceedings are under the supervision of a competent public authority (which may be an insolvency practitioner determined by national law) a Member State may provide that: (b) the transferee, transferor or person or persons exercising the transferor's functions, on the one hand, and the representatives of the employees on the other hand may agree alterations, in so far as current law or practice permits, to the employees' terms and conditions of employment designed to safeguard employment opportunities by ensuring the survival of the undertaking, business or part of the undertaking or business. [14] Member States whose laws, regulations or administrative provisions provide that representatives of the employees may have recourse to an arbitration board to obtain a decision on the measures to be taken in relation to employees may limit the obligations laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 to cases where the transfer carried out gives rise to a change in the business likely to entail serious disadvantages for a considerable number of the employees.The information and consultations shall cover at least the measures envisaged in relation to the employees.The information must be provided and consultations take place in good time before the change in the business as referred to in the first subparagraph is effected. [15] Member States may limit the obligations laid down in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 to undertakings or businesses which, in terms of the number of employees, meet the conditions for the election or nomination of a collegiate body representing the employees.