Remedies for infringements of EU law in legal relationships between private parties (LBF vol. 18) 2019/4.2.6:4.2.6 The ruling of the Cour de cassation in the case of AMS

Remedies for infringements of EU law in legal relationships between private parties (LBF vol. 18) 2019/4.2.6

4.2.6 The ruling of the Cour de cassation in the case of AMS

Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.

193. AMS brought an appeal before the Cour de cassation against the decision of the Tribunal d’instance de Marseille. The Cour de cassation referred the case to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the question whether Article L. 1111-3 Code du Travail should be disapplied for being in conflict with Directive 2002/14 and with Article 27 Charter.1 After the preliminary ruling, the Cour de cassation considers:

“[…] Qu’en statuant ainsi, alors que l’application de l’article L. 1111-3 de code de travail, quoique incompatible avec le droit de l’Union, ne ouvait être écartée par le juge judiciaire dans un litige entre particuliers au titre de l’article 27 de la Chartre des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne et des articles 2 et 3 §1 de la Directive 2002/14/CE de Parlement Européen et du Conseil de 11 mars 2002, et qu’il lui appartenait de vérifier si l’effectif de l’entreprise permettait la désignation d’un représentant de section syndicale en tenant compte des exclusions prévues par l’article L. 1111-3 du code du travail, le tribunal d’instance a violé le texte susvisé.” [Emphasis added: I.A.]

In short, and as indicated earlier, the Cour de cassation, with reference to the Court of Justice, rules that the workers’ right to information cannot be considered to be a general principle against which a domestic provision can be reviewed and be set aside in proceedings between private parties.2 Nor can, in a horizontal case like the one at issue, Article L. 1111-3 Code du Travail be set aside as a consequence of being in conflict with the Directive. And, finally, there is no option to interpret Article L. 1111-3 Code du Travail in conformity with the Directive because Article L. 1111-3 Code du Travail is manifestly incompatible with the Directive. As Milchior and Pujol state to the point:

“En l’occurrence le juge français ne pouvait ni écarter l’article L. 1111-3 ni l’interpréter conformément à la directive 2002/14 et à Article 27 de la Charte des droit fondamentaux. Nouvelle impasse!”3

In view of the current case law of the Court of Justice, in the context of proceedings between private parties there does not seem to be a solution to escape this impasse. In reaction to the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice, the Cour de cassation has annulled the judgment of the Tribunal d’instance de Marseille and referred the case to the Tribunal d’instance d’Aubagne.4It is unclear whether the Tribunal d’instance d’Aubagne has indeed delivered a ruling or whether parties eventually settled the case. Be that as it may, should the Tribunal d’instance d’Aubagne have delivered a ruling, it is likely to have applied Article L. 1111-3 Code du Travail and therefore to have decided in the favour of AMS, simply because neither on the basis of Union law nor on the basis of the French Constitution the Tribunal could have disapplied the provision, despite it clearly being in conflict with Directive 2002/14.

The Court of Justice suggested the aggrieved party to, as a last resort, lodge an action for Member State liability for the incorrect implementation of Directive 20002/14.5 Whether this alternative is indeed a promising option is discussed in §8.4.

Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.