CELEX: 62008CN0044
Language: en
Date: 2008-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-44/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 8 February 2008 — Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy

26.4.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 107/13
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 8 February 2008 — Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry v Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy
   (Case C-44/08)
   (2008/C 107/20)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicants: Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK ry, Erityisalojen Toimihenkilöliitto ERTO ry, Uusi Insinööriliitto UIL ry (formerly Insinööriliitto IL ry), Metallityöväen Liitto ry, Palvelualojen Ammattiliitto PAM ry, Suomen Ekonomiliitto — Finlands Ekonomförbund SEFE ry, Ammattiliitto SUORA ry Suomen Valtiotieteilijöitten Liitto SVAL ry — Statsvetarnas Förbund i Finland rf, Sähköalojen Ammattiliitto ry, Tekniikan Akateemisten Liitto TEK ry, Toimihenkilöunioni TU ry
   
      Defendant: Fujitsu Siemens Computers Oy
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               Is Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation under that provision to embark on consultations when ‘contemplating collective redundancies’ of employees and ‘in good time’ requires consultations to be started when it is established from strategic decisions or changes that have been made relating to the activity that a need for collective redundancies of employees follows? Or is the provision in question to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to start consultations already arises on the basis of the employer contemplating measures or changes affecting the activity, such as a change in production capacity or a concentration of production, as a consequence of which a need for collective redundancies is to be expected?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Having regard to the fact that the first subparagraph of Article 2(3) of the directive refers to the supply of information in good time during the course of the consultations, is Article 2(1) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation under that provision to start consultations when ‘contemplating’ collective redundancies and ‘in good time’ requires consultations to be started already before the employer's intentions have reached the stage at which the employer is required to identify and supply to the employees the information specified in Article 2(3)(b)?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Is Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 2(4) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation in which the employer is controlled by another undertaking, the employer's obligation to start consultations with the representatives of the employees originates when either the employer or the parent company controlling the employer contemplates action for collective redundancies of employees in the employer's service?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               In the case of consultations to be carried on in a subsidiary belonging to a group, and in assessing in the light of the provisions of Article 2(4) of the directive the obligation under Article 2(1) to enter into consultations when ‘contemplating’ collective redundancies and ‘in good time’, does the obligation to start consultations already arise when the management of the group or the parent company contemplates collective redundancies but that intention has not yet taken concrete form as concerning the employees in the service of a particular subsidiary under its control, or does the obligation to embark on consultations within the subsidiary arise only at the stage when the management of the group or the parent company contemplates collective redundancies specifically in that subsidiary company?
            
         
               5.
            
            
               If the employer is an undertaking (a subsidiary belonging to a group) controlled within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the directive by another undertaking (parent company or group management), is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the consultation procedure referred to there must be concluded before the decision on collective redundancies to be implemented in the subsidiary company is taken within the parent company or the group management?
            
         
               6.
            
            
               If the directive is to be interpreted in such a way that the consultation procedure to be carried on within the subsidiary company must be concluded before the decision giving rise to collective redundancies of employees is taken within the parent company or group management, is it only a decision whose direct consequence is the implementation of collective redundancies in the subsidiary company that is relevant in that connection, or must the consultation procedure be brought to a conclusion already before a commercial or strategic decision is taken within the parent company or the group management on the basis of which collective redundancies in the subsidiary company are probable but not yet finally certain?
            
         
      (1)  Council directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16).