This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CA0210
Case C-210/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Márton Urbán v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága (Road transport — Breach of the rules on the use of the tachograph — Obligation on Member States to establish proportionate penalties — Flat-rate fine — Proportionality of the penalty)
Case C-210/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Márton Urbán v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága (Road transport — Breach of the rules on the use of the tachograph — Obligation on Member States to establish proportionate penalties — Flat-rate fine — Proportionality of the penalty)
Case C-210/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Márton Urbán v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága (Road transport — Breach of the rules on the use of the tachograph — Obligation on Member States to establish proportionate penalties — Flat-rate fine — Proportionality of the penalty)
OJ C 80, 17.3.2012, p. 2–3
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
17.3.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 80/2 |
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Márton Urbán v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága
(Case C-210/10) (1)
(Road transport - Breach of the rules on the use of the tachograph - Obligation on Member States to establish proportionate penalties - Flat-rate fine - Proportionality of the penalty)
2012/C 80/03
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Márton Urbán
Defendant: Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Biróság — Interpretation of Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 1998 L 102, p. 1) and of Articles 13 to 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L370, p. 8) — National legislation imposing a fine of the same amount for all breaches of the rules on the use of the tachograph regardless of the seriousness of the breach in question and without allowing any possible defence — Obligation on Member States to impose proportionate penalties
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
The requirement of proportionality laid down in Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as precluding a system of penalties, such as that introduced by Government Decree No 57/2007 fixing the amount of fines for breaches of certain provisions concerning the transport by road of goods and persons (a közúti árufuvarozáshoz és személyszállításhoz kapcsolódó egyes rendelkezések megsértése esetén kiszabható bírságok összegéről szóló 57/2007, Korm. Rendelet) of 31 March 2007, which provides for the imposition of a flat-rate fine for all breaches, no matter how serious, of the rules on the use of record sheets laid down in Articles 13 to 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport, as amended by Regulation No 561/2006. |
|
2. |
The requirement of proportionality laid down in Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation No 561/2006 must be interpreted as not precluding a system of penalties, such as that introduced by Government Decree No 57/2007 of 31 March 2007 fixing the amount of fines for breaches of certain provisions concerning the transport by road of goods and persons, which lays down strict liability. By contrast, that requirement must be interpreted as precluding the severity of the penalty provided for by that system. |