ECJ 6 July 2023, case C-404/22 (Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou), Information and Consultation

Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou (Eoppep) – v – Elliniko Dimosio, Greek case

ECJ 6 July 2023, case C-404/22 (Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou), Information and Consultation

Ethnikos Organismos Pistopoiisis Prosonton & Epangelmatikou Prosanatolismou (Eoppep) – v – Elliniko Dimosio, Greek case

2021/9 AGET Iraklis: another belated victory for the employer (GR)

Τhe Supreme Court of Greece has clarified that the validity of terminations is not affected by the lack of consultation with the employees’ representatives, as per Directive 2002/14/EC on a general framework for informing and consulting employees. In case of non-compliance with such obligation, alternative administrative or judicial measures can be provided by the Member States. It further reiterated that the expediency and necessity of the company’s business decision to suddenly interrupt its plant operation cannot be subject to judicial control.

2021/9 AGET Iraklis: another belated victory for the employer (GR)

Τhe Supreme Court of Greece has clarified that the validity of terminations is not affected by the lack of consultation with the employees’ representatives, as per Directive 2002/14/EC on a general framework for informing and consulting employees. In case of non-compliance with such obligation, alternative administrative or judicial measures can be provided by the Member States. It further reiterated that the expediency and necessity of the company’s business decision to suddenly interrupt its plant operation cannot be subject to judicial control.

2020/22 Works council’s right to inspect remuneration lists (GE)

The Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, ‘BAG’) has held that a works council must be provided with the documents necessary for carrying out its duties at any time on request. A works committee or another committee of the works council formed in accordance with the provisions of the Works Constitution Act (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz, ‘BetrVG’) is entitled to inspect the lists of gross wages. This right to inspect is not limited to anonymized gross pay lists. Data protection considerations do not dictate that the right is limited to anonymized gross payrolls. The processing of personal data associated with the right of inspection is permitted under the European General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’) and the German Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, ‘BDSG’).

2020/22 Works council’s right to inspect remuneration lists (GE)

The Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, ‘BAG’) has held that a works council must be provided with the documents necessary for carrying out its duties at any time on request. A works committee or another committee of the works council formed in accordance with the provisions of the Works Constitution Act (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz, ‘BetrVG’) is entitled to inspect the lists of gross wages. This right to inspect is not limited to anonymized gross pay lists. Data protection considerations do not dictate that the right is limited to anonymized gross payrolls. The processing of personal data associated with the right of inspection is permitted under the European General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’) and the German Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, ‘BDSG’).

2018/17 Social dumping considerations are not relevant to whether the competent authority should issue A1-certificates (PL)

The Polish national social insurance authority has no power to police ‘social dumping’. Neither is there any legal basis or justification for excluding workers performing work in other EU Member States from the national social insurance system based on an unverifiable assumption that social dumping is taking place.

2018/17 Social dumping considerations are not relevant to whether the competent authority should issue A1-certificates (PL)

The Polish national social insurance authority has no power to police ‘social dumping’. Neither is there any legal basis or justification for excluding workers performing work in other EU Member States from the national social insurance system based on an unverifiable assumption that social dumping is taking place.

2016/44 Is there a genuine remedy for the employer’s failure to consult? (HU)

During negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement, the employer stopped consulting the employee representatives because a sectorial collective bargaining agreement had entered into force that also applied to the employer. After this, the trade union requested an appointment with the employer on a specific date and proposed an agenda for the meeting, including consultation on the impact of the sectorial collective bargaining agreement on the employees. The employer refused to meet on the requested date. The trade union challenged this via the Labour Court. The first and second instance courts turned down the trade union’s claim and confirmed the employer had acted lawfully. The Curia (the Supreme Court) established that the employer had breached its obligation to consult – an obligation deriving from the Labour Code which implemented Directive 2002/14 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees – but at the same time it refused to order the employer to proceed with the consultations, leaving the trade union without an effective remedy.

2016/44 Is there a genuine remedy for the employer’s failure to consult? (HU)

During negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement, the employer stopped consulting the employee representatives because a sectorial collective bargaining agreement had entered into force that also applied to the employer. After this, the trade union requested an appointment with the employer on a specific date and proposed an agenda for the meeting, including consultation on the impact of the sectorial collective bargaining agreement on the employees. The employer refused to meet on the requested date. The trade union challenged this via the Labour Court. The first and second instance courts turned down the trade union’s claim and confirmed the employer had acted lawfully. The Curia (the Supreme Court) established that the employer had breached its obligation to consult – an obligation deriving from the Labour Code which implemented Directive 2002/14 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees – but at the same time it refused to order the employer to proceed with the consultations, leaving the trade union without an effective remedy.