Case C-249/24, Ineo Infracom: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 September 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation – France) – RT, ED v Ineo Infracom (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Collective redundancies – Directive 98/59/EC – Article 1(1) – Scope – Concept of redundancy – Collective internal mobility agreement – Redundancies for economic reasons based on the refusal to apply that agreement – Termination of the employment contract on the employer’s initiative for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned – Article 2 – Procedures for information and consultation with workers’ representatives)
Date: 2025-09-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, collective dismissal, disclosure of information, employer, labour law, staff, trade union, work contract, worker consultation, worker information








C_202505559EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5559


27.10.2025






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 September 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation – France) – RT, ED v Ineo Infracom


(Case C-249/24,
                (1)
Ineo Infracom)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1) - Scope - Concept of ‘redundancy’ - Collective internal mobility agreement - Redundancies for economic reasons based on the refusal to apply that agreement - Termination of the employment contract on the employer’s initiative for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned - Article 2 - Procedures for information and consultation with workers’ representatives)
(C/2025/5559)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: RT, ED

Defendant: Ineo Infracom

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 1(1) 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 in order to assess whether terminations of employment contracts based on the refusal, by workers, to consent to the terms of a collective agreement relating to internal mobility being applied to their employment contract must be regarded as falling within the concept of ‘redundancies’ within the meaning of point (a) of the first subparagraph of that provision, the referring court must examine whether, having regard to that collective agreement and to the terms of the employment contract, the workers concerned are required to accept the change of geographical assignment proposed by the employer and, if that question is answered in the negative, whether that change constitutes a substantial change to an essential element of the employment contract, with the result that it must be taken into account in calculating the number of redundancies. If that condition were not satisfied, the termination of the employment contract following the worker’s refusal to accept such a change would constitute a termination of that contract on the employer’s initiative for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of that directive, with the result that it must also be taken into account in calculating the number of redundancies.










2.


Article 2 of Directive 98/59
must be interpreted as meaning that the information and consultation of workers’ representatives prior to the conclusion of a collective agreement relating to internal mobility are able to be considered to constitute consultation within the meaning of that article, provided that the information obligations laid down in paragraph 3 thereof are complied with.






(1)  OJ C, C/2024/4079.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5559/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)