The day after the ECJ’s AG Szpunar delivered his opinion in the case Plessers, a first analysis by Frederik De Leo was published on the Corporate Finance Lab (see here). Other versions of this blog post have now appeared on the Oxford Business Law Blog (in English) and in ‘De Juristenkrant’ (in Dutch).
In these other versions, the author discusses the possible consequences of the ECJ following its AG’s opinion from a comparative perspective. In this context, the author observes the following: Continue reading “Frederik De Leo about Plessers-case on ‘Oxford Business Law Blog’”
Setting the Boundaries of Articles 3–5 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC in the Aftermath of Smallsteps
Yesterday, Advocate General (AG) Szpunar delivered his opinion in Plessers (C-509/17), a case before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that concerns the protection of employees in one of the Belgian insolvency proceedings, i.e. the judicial reorganisation by transfer under judicial supervision/gerechtelijke reorganisatie door overdracht onder gerechtelijk gezag (hereinafter referred to as ‘GROG’). If the ECJ follows the interpretation by AG Szpunar of Articles 3-5 of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (hereinafter the ‘Directive’), the referring court would have almost no other option than to rule that Article 61(3) WCO (now: Article XX.86, §3 WER) violates the Directive.
On 23 April 2012, NV Echo entered into a judicial reorganisation by way of collective agreement. However, a collective agreement could not be reached, and on 19 February 2013, the judicial reorganisation proceeding was transformed into a GROG. On 22 April 2013, NV Prefaco took over the business of NV Echo together with two-thirds of the total employees of the transferor.
Plessers, who was one of the dismissed employees, argued (among other things) that Article 61(3) WCO violates the Directive. Continue reading “Plessers: the ECJ on a Killing Spree in the Belgian Insolvency Landscape?”