Case note. Court of Justice of the European Union.
Notification and the effectiveness of collective redundancies: Tomann
- Court
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- Date of decision
- Case reference
- C-134/24; ECLI:EU:C:2025:839
- Jurisdiction
- European Union (reference from Germany)
- Parties
- UR, acting as insolvency practitioner for V GmbH, v DF ('Tomann', a fictitious designation)
- Bench
- M. L. Arastey Sahún (President and Rapporteur), J. Passer, E. Regan, D. Gratsias and B. Smulders; Fifth Chamber
- Decision under appeal
- Reference from the Bundesarbeitsgericht, Germany
- Result
- Preliminary ruling on Directive 98/59; the national dismissal claim was not decided by the Court of Justice.
The ruling
The dispute concerned dismissal during insolvency-related collective redundancies without prior notification to the competent public authority.
The Court held that termination subject to the notification requirement cannot take effect before expiry of the Directive’s 30-day period. It also rejected later notification as a means of making the original termination effective 30 days after that corrective step. The prescribed sequence matters.
The question concerning notification with defective contents was inadmissible because it was hypothetical in this case. The ruling should therefore not be extended indiscriminately to every error in a notification.
Significance for restructuring timetables
For those negotiating a restructuring, an intended departure date should be tested before it becomes the basis of the commercial settlement. A useful implementation document would record each required step, the person responsible, the evidence of completion and the assumptions behind the proposed dates. A single completion date in a board paper can obscure dependencies which affect the whole exit budget.
The negotiating consequences are practical. If the planned date cannot be supported, the parties may need to revisit salary assumptions, handover arrangements, access to benefits and the period covered by an exit payment. These are planning implications rather than additional remedies awarded in Tomann.
Applying the ruling to a Maltese restructuring requires examination of national procedure. The judgment did not quantify compensation.
Related: Collective redundancy · EI v Brink’s (CJEU) · Restructuring advice for employers
Key insights
- Terminations subject to the notification requirement cannot take effect before the 30-day period after notifying the competent public authority.
- Notifying late does not make the original termination effective 30 days later. The sequence matters.
- Test the intended departure date against each required step before it becomes the basis of an exit settlement; in Malta, check S.L. 452.80.
The law changes, so please check the current position with an advocate before acting.