Judgment of the Court of 19 April 2023 in Case E-9/22 Verkfræðingafélag Íslands) (the Association of Chartered Engineers in Iceland), Stéttarfélag tölvunarfræðinga (the Computer Scientists’ Union) and Lyfjafræðingafélag Íslands (the Pharmaceutical Society of Iceland) v the Icelandic State (Council Directive 98/59/EC – Collective redundancies – Obligation to initiate consultations with the workers’ representatives – Obligation to notify the competent public authority – Contractual structure of the employment relationship) 2023/C 281/04
Date: 2023-04-19
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, collective dismissal, labour law, public authorities, work contract, worker consultation








C_2023281EN.01000801.xml










10.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 281/8






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 19 April 2023
in Case E-9/22
Verkfræðingafélag Íslands) (the Association of Chartered Engineers in Iceland), Stéttarfélag tölvunarfræðinga (the Computer Scientists’ Union) and Lyfjafræðingafélag Íslands (the Pharmaceutical Society of Iceland) v the Icelandic State

(Council Directive 98/59/EC – Collective redundancies – Obligation to initiate consultations with the workers’ representatives – Obligation to notify the competent public authority – Contractual structure of the employment relationship)

(2023/C 281/04)
In Case E-9/22, Verkfræðingafélag Íslands) (the Association of Chartered Engineers in Iceland), Stéttarfélag tölvunarfræðinga (the Computer Scientists’ Union) and Lyfjafræðingafélag Íslands (the Pharmaceutical Society of Iceland) v the Icelandic State – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Icelandic Court of Appeal (Landsréttur), concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur) and Ola Mestad (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 19 April 2023, the operative part of which is as follows:






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 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’.
The second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 98/59/EC must be interpreted as meaning that a notice of amendment which does not reach the threshold of constituting a ‘redundancy’ for the purpose of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of that directive is capable of being assimilated to a ‘redundancy’ provided that the conditions laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of that directive are fulfilled.
The consultation procedure provided for in Article 2 of Directive 98/59/EC must be initiated by the employer once a strategic or commercial decision compels him to contemplate or to plan for collective redundancies.
Where a decision involving the amendment of conditions of employment could help to avoid collective redundancies, the consultation procedure must begin once the employer intends to make such amendments.
An employer is obliged to notify the competent public authority according to the first subparagraph of Article 3 of Directive 98/59/EC of any projected collective redundancies. Such a notification must include anticipated redundancies within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(1)(a) of that directive and terminations of employment contracts assimilated to redundancies within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of that directive.










2.


The obligation to initiate the consultation procedure and to notify the competent public authority laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 98/59/EC cannot depend on subsequent events, such as whether employment contracts are in fact terminated.










3.


It is irrelevant whether an employee’s conditions of employment are stipulated in one contract or are spread over several contracts.