In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court’s answer to the first question raised by the referring court should be that Article 2(1) of Directive 98/59 is to be interpreted as meaning that neither the situation where the employer takes measures as a result of which a need for collective redundancies of employees follows, nor that where the employer plans to adopt measures as a consequence of which a need for collective redundancies of employees is to be expected, is covered by the expression ‘contemplating collective redundancies’. That expression must be understood as referring to the moment at which it is apparent that the employer intends to make collective redundancies or, at least, that he already foresees the possibility of doing so as a consequence of the measures planned.
Κανόνισα συνάντηση με τον Κίνγκσλεϊ στο Κολίζεουμ το ΛΑ, θύραEurLex-2 EurLex-2