The European Court of Justice has today given its decision in the “Woolworths case” on the duty to consult collectively under the Collective Redundancies Directive, in particular defining the meaning of “establishment” for the purposes of determining when that duty is triggered.

The European Court of Justice (Judgment of 4 September 2014, C-327/13), held that in accordance to the ECRegulation No. 1346/2000, a secondary insolvency proceeding in the Member State where the debtor has its registeredoffice – which does not coincide with the centre of its main interest (COMI) – may be opened at the request of creditorsentitled under the law of that State.

The case

As reported in our briefing last week, the European Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in the case of Union of Shop, Distributive & Allied Workers (USDAW) and another v WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation) and others (C–80/14) in relation to long running claims brought by former employees of national retailers Woolworths and Ethel Austin, which arose out of the administration and closure of all of their retail stores. The ECJ had to consider the meaning of “establishment” in the legislation, which triggers an obligation to undertake collective consultation when an employe

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has made a referral to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) concerning the question of whether a director of an English limited company which predominantly operated its business in Germany and over the assets of which insolvency proceedings have been opened in Germany, pursuant to Art 3 para 1 European Insolvency Regulation, can, like the director of a German GmbH, be held liable for forbidden payments pursuant to German corporate law or insolvency law.

In the Schmid case the European Court of Justice ruled on the issue of jurisdiction of the Courts of a Member State ofthe EU where an insolvency procedure was commenced, whose receiver started a claw-back action against a defendantdomiciled in a non-Member State

The Case

16 January 2014
Case C-328/12
Court of Justice of the European Union (Judges Tizzano, Lenaerts, Borg Barthet, Levits, Berger (Rapporteur))

The Court of Justice extended the reach of the EU Insolvency Regulation to allow proceedings to set aside transactions to be brought against defendants resident in non-member states, confirming that it has universal effect.

The Court of Appeal decided yesterday that it couldn’t make a ruling on the correct way to calculate the collective redundancies threshold without making a reference to the European Court of Justice. Employers will therefore have to wait a considerable while longer before the law is clarified.

The EU Court of Justice has held that the Irish State is obliged to protect the pension benefits of former employees of Waterford Crystal who were left with only 18-28% of their pension benefits when the company became insolvent.  

The European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”) this morning delivered its ruling in the case of Hogan and Others v Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Ireland, Attorney General (the “Waterford Crystal case”). The Court held that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 EC (the “Directive”) on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer.

In a long awaited landmark judgment, The European Court of Justice has today found in favour of ten former Waterford Crystal workers who alleged the Irish State had failed in their obligations to correctly implement European Directive 2008/94EC ('The Directive’) on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer.