This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CN0416
Case C-416/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro (Portugal) lodged on 27 July 2016 — Luís Manuel Piscarreta Ricardo v Portimão Urbis, EM, SA — in liquidation and Others
Case C-416/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro (Portugal) lodged on 27 July 2016 — Luís Manuel Piscarreta Ricardo v Portimão Urbis, EM, SA — in liquidation and Others
Case C-416/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro (Portugal) lodged on 27 July 2016 — Luís Manuel Piscarreta Ricardo v Portimão Urbis, EM, SA — in liquidation and Others
OJ C 383, 17.10.2016, p. 4–5
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
17.10.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 383/4 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro (Portugal) lodged on 27 July 2016 — Luís Manuel Piscarreta Ricardo v Portimão Urbis, EM, SA — in liquidation and Others
(Case C-416/16)
(2016/C 383/05)
Language of the case: Portuguese
Referring court
Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Luís Manuel Piscarreta Ricardo
Defendants: Portimão Urbis, EM, SA — in liquidation, Município de Portimão, and EMARP — Empresa Municipal de Águas e Resíduos de Portimão, EM, SA
Questions referred
|
1. |
Does Article 1, and in particular paragraph (b) thereof, of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001 apply to a situation such as that of the present case, in which a municipal undertaking (whose sole shareholder is the municipality) is dissolved (by decision of the municipality’s executive body), and the activities carried on by it are allocated in part to the municipality and in part to another municipal undertaking (whose objects were altered to that end — and which is also wholly owned by the municipality), that is, in those circumstances may it be considered that there has been a transfer of a business within the meaning of the abovementioned directive? |
|
2. |
Must an employee not in active service (that is, having had his employment contract suspended) be considered included in the concept of ‘employee’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(d) of Directive 2001/23/EC and, accordingly, must the rights and obligations arising from the contract of employment be considered transferred to the transferee, in accordance with Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC? |
|
3. |
Is the introduction of restrictions on the transfer of employees, that is, according to the type of employment relationship or its duration, in the context of a transfer of a business, in particular restrictions of the type referred to in Article 62(5), (6) and (11) of the RJAEL, (2) permissible and therefore consistent with EU law? |
(1) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).
(2) Regime Jurídico da Atividade Empresarial Local e das Participações Locais (Portuguese legal regime for local businesses and the shareholdings held by local authorities).