{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01755926251097454, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003511852502194908, 'mean_word_length': 5.0638297872340425, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The European Directive on Collective Dismissals and its Implementation Deficits Six ECJ Judgments as a Potential Incentive for Amending the Directive

Over the last few years the Court of Justice of the EC – after a period of ‘silence’ – ruled in six cases about implementation of the 1998 Council Directive on collective dismissals in Italy, Portugal, Germany, Greece and France. Although the lessons that can be learned from the Decisions can be of importance for other ‘founding’ Member States that might have failed to implement the Directive correctly and/or for potential future Member States in implementing it correctly, they could also be useful for the EU itself. In a period in which the Commission succeeded in improving the Directive on European Works Councils, the judgments could be seen as an incentive for amending the Directive on collective dismissals. After a short description of the Directive, the six European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgments will be analyzed and commented on in view of their significance for such an amendment. Some suggestions relating to potential amendments will be outlined in the conclusions.