Categories: Insights, Case Law


3 Dec 2015

European Court of Justice: interpretation of the directive on collective redundancies

The Court of Justice of the European Union, with sentence no. C-422/14 of 11 November 2015, intervened on two central points of the European directive on collective redundancies (98/59/EC). In this case (i) the calculation criteria for company size which makes the law governing collective redundancies applicable and (ii) the notion of redundancy useful for determining the numeric limit above which the directive on collective redundancies applies. In terms of the first point, the Court observed that, for the purposes of calculating the number of employees for application of the directive on collective redundancies, that workers employed for a fixed term form part of “normally employed workers”. In terms of the second point, the Court established that for the calculation of the five redundancies “any termination of the employment contract not desired by the worker and, thus, without his consent” is considered a redundancy, including resignations submitted by an employee due to unilateral changes made by the employer to an essential element of the employment contract for reasons not related to that individual worker. The impact of this ruling on Italian law will be mitigated in terms of the first point, since the Jobs Act requires that the calculation of employees . for the purposes of applying any legal or contractual provision – must take into account workers employed under a contract for a fixed term, by applying a specific calculation criteria (article 27 Legislative Decree 81/2015). The repercussions regarding the second point could be significant, since dismissals, according to our laws, even if for “just cause” have always been excluded from the calculation of the numeric threshold for application of the aforesaid law.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

1 Oct 2026

Corporate e-mail and defensive monitoring: when the GDPR and employment law lead to different outcomes 

The Piaggio case clearly illustrates how the same set of facts can give rise to profoundly different assessments depending on the perspective adopted. In its decision of 13…

1 Oct 2026

NASpI and Reinstatement: the Employee’s Election Causes Loss of the Benefit 

Headnote   In its recent judgment No. 24981 of 3 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is set aside with an order of reinstatement…

1 Oct 2026

Did you know that… testimony given in court may have disciplinary relevance and, in the most serious cases, justify dismissal? 

The Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, by order no. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressed the issue of the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee in…

29 Sep 2026

Shadow AI in the workplace: how to govern risks, data, and security (Agenda digitale, 29 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Martina De Angeli)

The spread of artificial intelligence tools used without corporate authorization exposes businesses to risks involving personal data, confidential information, know-how, and cybersecurity. To govern Shadow AI, organizations need…

24 Sep 2026

The concept of “territorial scope” in a non-compete agreement (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Alessandro Ferrari)

Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…