CELEX: 62018CA0194
Language: en
Date: 2019-05-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-194/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Jadran Dodič v Banka Koper, Alta Invest (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Transfers of undertakings — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 1(1) — Scope — Criteria for assessment of the transfer — Transfer of clients — Transfer of all the financial services of a bank, excluding staff, to a stock brokering company)

8.7.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 230/14
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — Jadran Dodič v Banka Koper, Alta Invest
      (Case C-194/18) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Transfers of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 1(1) - Scope - Criteria for assessment of the transfer - Transfer of clients - Transfer of all the financial services of a bank, excluding staff, to a stock brokering company)
      (2019/C 230/16)
      Language of the case: Slovenian
      
         Referring court
      
      Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellant: Jadran Dodič
      
         Respondents: Banka Koper, Alta Invest
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, must be interpreted as meaning that the transfer, to a second undertaking, of financial instruments and other assets of the clients of a first undertaking, following the cessation of the first undertaking’s activity, under a contract the conclusion of which is required by national legislation, even though the first undertaking’s clients remain free not to entrust the management of their stock market securities to the second undertaking, may constitute a transfer of an undertaking or of part of an undertaking if it is established that there was a transfer of clients, that being a matter for the referring court to determine. In that context, the number of clients actually transferred, even if very high, is not, in itself, decisive as regards classification as a ‘transfer’ and the fact that the first undertaking cooperates with the second undertaking as a dependent stock-exchange intermediary, is, in principle, irrelevant.
      
         (1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.