CELEX: 62014CA0292
Language: en
Date: 2016-02-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-292/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Elliniko Dimosio v Stefanos Stroumpoulis and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 80/987/EEC — Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Scope — Outstanding wage claims of seamen working on board a vessel flying the flag of a non-member country — Employer whose registered office is located in the non-member country — Employment contract subject to the law of the non-member country — Employer declared insolvent in a Member State in which its actual head office is located — Article 1(2) — Annex, Section II, A — National legislation providing a guarantee in respect of the outstanding wage claims of seaman only if they are abandoned abroad — Level of protection not equivalent to that provided by Directive 80/987)

25.4.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 145/6
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Elliniko Dimosio v Stefanos Stroumpoulis and Others
   (Case C-292/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 80/987/EEC - Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Scope - Outstanding wage claims of seamen working on board a vessel flying the flag of a non-member country - Employer whose registered office is located in the non-member country - Employment contract subject to the law of the non-member country - Employer declared insolvent in a Member State in which its actual head office is located - Article 1(2) - Annex, Section II, A - National legislation providing a guarantee in respect of the outstanding wage claims of seaman only if they are abandoned abroad - Level of protection not equivalent to that provided by Directive 80/987))
   (2016/C 145/06)
   Language of the case: Greek
   
      Referring court
   
   Simvoulio tis Epikratias
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Elliniko Dimosio
   
      Defendants: Stefanos Stroumpoulis, Nikolaos Koumpanos, Panagiotis Renieris, Charalampos Renieris, Ioannis Zacharias, Dimitrios Lazarou, Apostolos Chatzisotiriou
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the possible application of Article 1(2) of the directive, seamen living in a Member State who were engaged in that State by a company with its registered office in a non-member country but its actual head office in that Member State to work as employees on board a cruise ship owned by the company and flying the flag of the non-member country under an employment contract designating the law of the non-member country as the law applicable must, after the company has been declared insolvent by a court of the Member State concerned in accordance with the law of that State, be eligible for the protection conferred by the directive as regards their outstanding wage claims against the company.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 1(2) of Directive 80/987 must be interpreted as meaning that, as regards employees in a situation such as that of the defendants in the main proceedings, protection such as that provided in Article 29 of Law 1220/1981 supplementing and amending the legislation relating to the Piraeus port authority in the event that seamen are abandoned abroad does not constitute ‘protection equivalent to that resulting from [the] Directive’ within the meaning of that provision.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.