Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
Date: 1985-03-28
13 THE COMMISSION CONTENDS IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT BELGIAN LAW TRADITIONALLY DRAWS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CONCEPTS OF CLOSURE OF AN UNDERTAKING AND COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCY . THE EFFECT OF THAT DISTINCTION IS THAT REDUNDANCIES ARISING FROM THE CLOSURE OF UNDERTAKINGS , WHETHER OR NOT SUCH CLOSURE COMES ABOUT AS A RESULT OF A JUDICIAL DECISION , ARE GOVERNED NOT BY THE LEGISLATION ADOPTED IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO DIRECTIVE 75/129 BUT BY THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE LAW OF 28 JUNE 1966 CONCERNING COMPENSATION FOR WORKERS DISMISSED AS A RESULT OF THE CLOSURE OF UNDERTAKINGS ( MONITEUR BELGE OF 2 JULY 1966 , P . 6879 ) AND OF THE ROYAL DECREE OF 20 SEPTEMBER 1967 IMPLEMENTING THAT LAW ( MONITEUR BELGE OF 5 OCTOBER 1967 , P . 10463 ).
14 THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT THAT ALTHOUGH THOSE PROVISIONS , WHERE APPROPRIATE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THOSE OF COLLECTIVE LABOUR AGREEMENT NO 9 OF 9 MARCH 1972 , REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER , IN THE EVENT OF THE CLOSURE OF AN UNDERTAKING , TO PROVIDE CERTAIN INFORMATION TO THE WORKERS '  REPRESENTATIVES AND TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES , THE SCOPE OF THAT OBLIGATION DOES NOT SATISFY ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DIRECTIVE , PARTICULARLY THOSE EMBODIED IN ARTICLES 3 AND 4 CONCERNING WHAT INFORMATION IS TO BE PROVIDED AND WITHIN WHAT PERIODS .
15 THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT THAT THE DISTINCTION DRAWN IN BELGIUM BETWEEN THE CLOSURE OF UNDERTAKINGS AND COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES HAS HISTORICAL ORIGINS . IN BELGIUM THE POSITION OF WORKERS DISMISSED AS A RESULT OF THE CLOSURE OF AN UNDERTAKING HAS BEEN REGULATED BY LEGISLATION SINCE 1960 , WHILST COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES WERE REGULATED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY COLLECTIVE LABOUR AGREEMENT NO 10 OF 8 MAY 1973 WHICH SOUGHT TO MITIGATE THE CONSEQUENCES OF COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES BY THE GRANT OF A SPECIAL ALLOWANCE , THE COST OF WHICH WAS TO BE BORNE BY THE EMPLOYER .
16 THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT MAINTAINS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF CLOSURES OF UNDERTAKINGS WHICH ARE LIKELY TO LEAD TO COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES COME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF A JUDICIAL DECISION , WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EXCEPTION IN ARTICLE 1 ( 2 ) ( C ) OF THE DIRECTIVE , AND ARE CONSEQUENTLY EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE . IT ALSO STATES THAT BELGIAN LAW DOES NOT RULE OUT THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE RULES ADOPTED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIVE ALSO APPLY IN THE EVENT OF COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES ARISING FROM THE CLOSURE OF UNDERTAKINGS . IT ACKNOWLEDGES , HOWEVER , THAT THIS POINT HAS NOT YET BEEN DECIDED BY THE COURTS .
17 IT MUST BE NOTED THAT EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT ' S CONTENTION IS ACCEPTED THAT IN BELGIUM ONLY A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF CLOSURES OF UNDERTAKINGS DO NOT COME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF A JUDICIAL DECISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 1 ( 2 ) ( D ) OF DIRECTIVE 75/129 , THAT DOES NOT RELIEVE THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM OF ITS DUTY TO PROVIDE WORKERS WITH THE PROTECTION ENVISAGED BY THE DIRECTIVE IN THE EVENT OF COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES ARISING FROM SUCH CLOSURES .
18 THAT DUTY IS NOT FULLY DISCHARGED BY THE LAW OF 28 JUNE 1966 CONCERNING COMPENSATION FOR WORKERS DISMISSED AS A RESULT OF THE CLOSURE OF UNDERTAKINGS AND BY THE ROYAL DECREE OF 20 SEPTEMBER 1967 IMPLEMENTING THAT LAW . CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLES 3 AND 4 OF THE DIRECTIVE , THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PROVISIONS DO NOT REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER TO PROVIDE INFORMATION RELATING TO THE REASONS FOR THE COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES , THE NUMBER OF WORKERS TO BE DISMISSED AND THE PERIOD OVER WHICH THE REDUNDANCIES ARE TO BE EFFECTED , NOR DO THEY STIPULATE THAT THE COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES ENVISAGED ARE NOT TO TAKE EFFECT BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION OF THE PROJECTED REDUNDANCY TO THE COMPETENT PUBLIC AUTHORITY .
19 AS THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT HAS ITSELF CONCEDED , BELGIAN LAW MAY BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT IN THE EVENT OF COLLECTIVE REDUNDANCIES ARISING FROM THE CLOSURE OF AN UNDERTAKING , ONLY THE SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ADOPTED IN 1966 AND 1967 IS APPLICABLE , TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE SUBSEQUENT , THOUGH GENERAL , RULES ADOPTED IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIVE . IT FOLLOWS THAT BELGIAN LAW DOES NOT OFFER A SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AS REGARDS THE PROTECTION OF WORKERS ENVISAGED BY THE DIRECTIVE .