C 71/16
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
27.2.2023
2.
Error of law, insufficient reasoning, incomplete examination of the plea of the Applicant, distortion of evidence, manifest error of assessment, action ultra vires and ultra petita, violation of Article 11 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union regarding the first plea in law. 3.
Error of law, incorrect legal classification, distortion of evidence and manifest error of appraisal regarding the statement of facts. 4.
Error of law, distortion of evidence, manifest error of appraisal, insufficient reasoning, incomplete examination of the plea of the Applicant, failure to establish the legally relevant facts, legal examination of the relevant facts, incomplete examination of the plea, insufficient reasoning regarding the fifth plea in law. 5.
Error of law, distortion of evidence, incomplete examination of the plea, insufficient reasoning, irregular procedure and action ultra vires regarding the sixth plea in law. 6.
Incomplete examination of the plea and insufficient reasoning regarding the eighth plea in law. 7.
Distortion of evidence, manifest error of appraisal and incomplete examination of the plea of the Applicant regarding the second and third plea in law. 8.
Violation of Article 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by the General Court.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2022 — Konzernbetriebsrat der O SE & Co. KG (Case C-706/22) (2023/C 71/19) Language of the case: German Referring court Bundesarbeitsgericht
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant, appellant and appellant on a point of law: Konzernbetriebsrat der O SE & Co. KG Intervener: Vorstand der O Holding SE
Questions referred 1.
Is Article 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001, (1) in conjunction with Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2001/86/EC, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that, where a holding SE is formed by participating companies which do not employ employees, and do not have subsidiaries employing employees, and the holding SE was registered in the register of a Member State (a so-called ‘SE without employees’) without a negotiation procedure for the involvement of employees in the SE having first been conducted, under that directive that negotiation procedure has to be conducted retrospectively if the SE becomes the controlling undertaking of subsidiaries in several Member States of the European Union which employ employees? 2.
If the Court’s answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Is the retrospective conduct of the negotiation procedure in such a case possible and necessary for an unlimited time?