CELEX: 62009CN0477
Language: en
Date: 2009-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-477/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 25 November 2009 — Charles Defossez v Christian Wiart, liquidator of Sotimon SARL, Office national de l’emploi, CGEA de Lille

13.2.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 37/18
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 25 November 2009 — Charles Defossez v Christian Wiart, liquidator of Sotimon SARL, Office national de l’emploi, CGEA de Lille
   (Case C-477/09)
   2010/C 37/19
   Language of the case: French
   
      Referring court
   
   Cour de Cassation
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Charles Defossez
   
      Defendant: Christian Wiart, liquidator of Sotimon SARL; Office national de l’emploi (fonds de fermeture d’entreprises); CGEA de Lille
   
      Question referred
   
   Is the reference to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a ruling on whether Article 8a of Council 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, (1) as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, (2) which provides, in paragraph 1 thereof, that when an undertaking with activities in the territories of at least two Member States is in a state of insolvency, the institution responsible for meeting employees’ outstanding claims is to be that in the Member State in whose territory they work or habitually work and, in paragraph 2 thereof, that the extent of employees’ rights is to be determined by the law governing the competent guarantee institution, is to be interpreted as designating the competent institution to the exclusion of any other, or whether, having regard to the purpose of the Directive, which is to strengthen the rights of workers exercising their right to freedom of movement, and to the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Directive, under which the Directive is not to affect the option of Member States to apply or introduce laws, regulations or administrative provisions which are more favourable to employees, it is to be interpreted as not depriving the employee of the right to take advantage, in the place of that institution’s guarantee, of a more favourable guarantee from the institution with which his employer is insured and to which it makes contributions under national law?
   
      (1)  OJ L 283, p. 23.
   
      (2)  OJ L 270, p. 10.