Collective redundancy notification: mistakes and consequences

Two cases, one outcome

On 1 April 2026, the Federal Labour Court (BAG) ruled in two proceedings with the case numbers 6 AZR 157/22 and 6 AZR 152/22. Both concerned dismissals in the context of a collective redundancy, and in both the notification procedure went wrong. The court's answer is unambiguous: anyone who dismisses without the required collective redundancy notification dismisses ineffectively. The same applies where the notification reaches the Federal Employment Agency before the consultations with the works council have been concluded.

In the first case, the employer had not filed any notification at all. The Regional Labour Court of Hamburg had therefore declared the dismissal ineffective, and the Federal Labour Court dismissed the appeal against that decision. In the second case there was a notification, but it came too early: the consultation procedure with the works council had not yet been completed. The Regional Labour Court of Düsseldorf had dismissed the employee's claim. The Federal Labour Court allowed her appeal.

What a collective redundancy notification achieves

Anyone dismissing a larger number of employees within a short period must follow a special procedure. The thresholds for this depend on the size of the establishment. The procedure begins with the consultation: the employer informs the works council about the planned redundancies and consults with it on them. Only afterwards does the employer file the collective redundancy notification with the Federal Employment Agency.

Receipt of the notification triggers a waiting period of 30 days. During this time, the agency is to look for solutions to the problems raised by the redundancies. It can, for example, prepare to place those affected in new employment. No dismissal takes effect before the period has expired. It is the notification that sets this period running in the first place, and that is precisely where its significance lies.

The dispute between two senates

More than four years lie between the judgments of the regional labour courts and the decision of the Federal Labour Court. The reason: two senates of the court disagreed. Until now, the Second Senate considered a dismissal without prior notification to be void. At the end of 2023, the Sixth Senate expressed doubts and no longer wished to recognise a breach of the notification duty as a ground for ineffectiveness. Because this would have departed from the line taken by the Second Senate, it had to make an enquiry there.

The Second Senate referred the question to the European Court of Justice, since the German rules on collective redundancies implement a European directive. A few months later, the Sixth Senate sent almost the same questions to Luxembourg. This gave rise to the two cases Tomann and Sewel.

What the ECJ laid down in October 2025

The European Court of Justice gave its answers in both proceedings on 30 October 2025. In Tomann it made clear: a dismissal in the context of a collective redundancy can only take effect after the 30-day period has expired, and that period only runs following a notification. A missing notification cannot be filed subsequently in order to let the dismissal take effect 30 days later. The sequence of consultation, notification, dismissal must be strictly observed.

Sewel concerned incorrect or incomplete notifications. Here too the court remained strict: the purpose of the notification is missed even if the authority does not object to the error and considers itself sufficiently informed. If the authority makes up for the shortcoming through its own enquiries, that does not release the employer from its duty either. Which sanction follows was left by the court to national law. The sanction must, however, be effective enough to induce employers to comply with the procedure. In March 2026 the Second Senate replied to the enquiry, and on 1 April the Sixth Senate named the sanction: the dismissal is ineffective.

Consequences for employers and insolvency administrators

For practice this means three things. First: the sequence is not negotiable. The consultation procedure with the works council must be concluded before the notification reaches the Federal Employment Agency. Anyone handling both in parallel to save time ends up losing more time than they have gained. Second: putting things right afterwards does not help. A forgotten notification cannot be cured. The entire procedure must be repeated and the dismissals must be issued anew. Third: no one can rely on the Federal Employment Agency being lenient. If it does not object to a faulty notification, the error nonetheless remains an error.

This affects insolvency administrators just as much as any other employer. An administrator who closes a business and dismisses all remaining employees faces exactly this procedure. If the dismissals are ineffective, the employment relationships continue, and they do so until a new procedure has been completed properly. In insolvency, where every further month is a burden on the estate, that is an expensive mistake.

Small errors in figures do no harm

Strict does not mean petty. This is shown by a further judgment of the Federal Labour Court of 25 June 2026. A key manufacturer and mechanical engineering company had become insolvent in November 2024. The insolvency administrator informed the works council about the planned closure of the business and the dismissal of all remaining employees. On 25 February 2025 the reconciliation of interests was agreed, the agreement with the works council on the closure. The administrator then filed the collective redundancy notification and, after its receipt, dismissed a machine setter with effect from 31 May 2025. The notification stated 34 redundancies; 31 or 32 were actually issued.

The employee considered the dismissal ineffective because of the contradictory figures. The labour court agreed with him; the Regional Labour Court of Hamm and the Federal Labour Court did not. The notification is intended to enable the Federal Employment Agency to look for solutions for 30 days. A figure that is slightly too high does not interfere with this task. The notification was therefore still proper despite the objectively incorrect statement, and the employment relationship ended on 31 May 2025. In addition, the administrator had carried out the consultation procedure properly and completed it before the notification. Whether an error is harmful depends, according to the court, on the circumstances of the individual case.

Conclusion

The collective redundancy notification determines the effectiveness of every dismissal in the context of a collective redundancy. If it is missing, or if it is received before the consultations with the works council have been concluded, the dismissals are ineffective, and there is no cure. This applies to insolvency administrators just as much as to any other employer.

Small inaccuracies in the notification, by contrast, do no harm as long as they do not hinder the Federal Employment Agency in its task. It makes sense to document the conclusion of the consultation and to send the notification only afterwards.