Case C-402/24, Sewel: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht – Germany) – BL v Dr A, acting as liquidator of Luftfahrtgesellschaft Walter mbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 98/59/EC – Collective redundancies – First subparagraph of Article 3(1) – Incorrect or incomplete notification of the projected collective redundancies to the competent public authority – First subparagraph of Article 4(1) – 30-day standstill period – Validity of the redundancies – Article 6 – Penalties)
Date: 2025-10-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, labour law, unfair dismissal








C_202506596EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6596


22.12.2025






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht – Germany) – BL v Dr A, acting as liquidator of Luftfahrtgesellschaft Walter mbH


(Case C-402/24,
                (1)
Sewel
                (2)
)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 98/59/EC - Collective redundancies - First subparagraph of Article 3(1) - Incorrect or incomplete notification of the projected collective redundancies to the competent public authority - First subparagraph of Article 4(1) - 30-day standstill period - Validity of the redundancies - Article 6 - Penalties)
(C/2025/6596)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: BL

Respondent: Dr A, acting as liquidator of Luftfahrtgesellschaft Walter mbH

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 3 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/1794 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 6 October 2015,
must be interpreted as meaning that the objective of the notification of projected collective redundancies to the competent public authority cannot be regarded as being achieved, on the one hand, where that authority raises no objection as to an incorrect or incomplete notification and thus considers that it has sufficient information to seek solutions to the problems raised by the projected collective redundancies within the period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of that directive and, on the other, where national legislation provides that the employer is to cooperate with that authority in preventing or limiting unemployment and/or where the national employment authority is required to investigate on its own initiative in the context of a collective redundancy procedure.










2.


Article 6 of Directive 98/59, as amended by Directive 2015/1794,
must be interpreted as meaning that in the event of incorrect or incomplete notification of projected collective redundancies, the fact that the 30-day period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of that directive does not run does not constitute a measure intended for the enforcement, within the meaning of Article 6, of the obligation to notify laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of that directive.






(1)  OJ C, C/2024/5216.

(2)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6596/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)