Case C-134/24, Tomann: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht – Germany) – UR, acting as insolvency practitioner for V GmbH v DF (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social policy – Directive 98/59/EC – Collective redundancies – First subparagraph of Article 3(1) – Requirement of prior notification of projected collective redundancies to the competent public authority – Whether notification meets the requirements of that directive – Not consistent – Validity of the dismissal – First subparagraph of Article 4(1) – 30-day standstill period)
Date: 2025-10-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, labour law, unfair dismissal








C_202506590EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6590


22.12.2025






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 October 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht – Germany) – UR, acting as insolvency practitioner for V GmbH v DF


(Case C-134/24,
                (1)
Tomann
                (2)
)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 98/59/EC - Collective redundancies - First subparagraph of Article 3(1) - Requirement of prior notification of projected collective redundancies to the competent public authority - Whether notification meets the requirements of that directive - Not consistent - Validity of the dismissal - First subparagraph of Article 4(1) - 30-day standstill period)
(C/2025/6590)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: UR, acting as insolvency practitioner for V GmbH

Respondent: DF

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The first subparagraph of Article 4(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, 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 termination of an employment contract, occurring in the context of projected collective redundancies subject to the obligation to notify the competent public authority laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of that directive, cannot take effect until expiry of the 30-day period laid down in the first subparagraph of that Article 4(1).










2.


The first subparagraph of Article 3(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Directive 98/59, as amended by Directive 2015/1794,
must be interpreted as meaning that an employer who has terminated an employment contract without notifying the competent public authority of the projected collective redundancies of which the termination forms part, in breach of that first provision, cannot rectify the absence of notification in such a way that the termination takes effect 30 days after rectification.






(1)  OJ C, C/2024/2734.

(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/2025/6590/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)