Case C-12/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation v Dervis Odemis and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 98/59/EC — Articles 2 and 6 — Procedure for informing and consulting employees in the case of collective redundancy — Employer’s obligations — Workers’ right of action — Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law)
Date: 2009-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, collective dismissal, interpretation of the law, labour law, legal action, worker consultation, worker information








C_2009220EN.01000702.xml










12.9.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/7





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation v Dervis Odemis and Others
(Case C-12/08) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/59/EC - Articles 2 and 6 - Procedure for informing and consulting employees in the case of collective redundancy - Employer’s obligations - Workers’ right of action - Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law)
2009/C 220/11
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation

Defendants: Dervis Odemis and Others

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 2, 3 and 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Legality of the procedure for informing and consulting staff in the event of redundancy — Lack of written communication in relation to, inter alia, the reasons for the projected redundancies, the number and categories of workers to be made redundant and the criteria proposed for the selection of those workers — Effect of the failure, on the part of the workers’ representatives, to complain, on the right of workers, individually, to bring proceedings to contest the legality of the redundancy procedure — Scope of the requirement to interpret consistently.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, read in conjunction with Article 2 thereof, is to be interpreted as not precluding national rules which introduce procedures intended to permit both workers’ representatives and the workers themselves as individuals to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down in that directive, but which limit the individual right of action of workers in regard to the complaints which may be raised and makes that right subject to the requirement that workers’ representatives should first have raised objections with the employer and that the worker concerned has informed the employer in advance of his intention to query whether the information and consultation procedure has been complied with;










2.


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










3.


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






(1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.