Case C-422/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Cristian Pujante Rivera v Gestora Clubs Dir, SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Collective redundancies — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1)(a), first subparagraph — Concept of workers ‘normally employed’ at the establishment concerned — Article 1(1), second subparagraph — Concepts of ‘redundancy’ and ‘terminations of employment contracts that may be assimilated to redundancies’ — Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant)
Date: 2015-11-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European social policy, collective dismissal, work contract








C_2016016EN.01001201.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/12





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona — Spain) — Cristian Pujante Rivera v Gestora Clubs Dir, SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial
(Case C-422/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a), first subparagraph - Concept of workers ‘normally employed’ at the establishment concerned - Article 1(1), second subparagraph - Concepts of ‘redundancy’ and ‘terminations of employment contracts that may be assimilated to redundancies’ - Method of calculating the number of workers made redundant))
(2016/C 016/13)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cristian Pujante Rivera

Defendants: Gestora Clubs Dir, SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that workers employed under a contract concluded for a fixed term or a specific task must be regarded as forming part of the workers ‘normally’ employed, within the meaning of that provision, at the establishment concerned.










2.


In order to establish whether there is a ‘collective redundancy’, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59, thus giving rise to the application of the directive, the condition laid down in the second subparagraph of that provision that ‘there [be] at least five redundancies’ must be interpreted as relating not to terminations of employment contracts that may be assimilated to redundancies but only to redundancies sensu stricto.










3.


Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an employer — unilaterally and to the detriment of the employee — makes significant changes to essential elements of his employment contract for reasons not related to the individual employee concerned falls within the definition of ‘redundancy’ for the purpose of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of the directive.






(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.