EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62023CN0164

Case C-164/23, VOLÁNBUSZ: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 16 March 2023 — VOLÁNBUSZ Zrt. v Bács-Kiskun Vármegyei Kormányhivatal

OJ C 189, 30.5.2023, p. 22–23 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

30.5.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/22


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 16 March 2023 — VOLÁNBUSZ Zrt. v Bács-Kiskun Vármegyei Kormányhivatal

(Case C-164/23, VOLÁNBUSZ)

(2023/C 189/29)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VOLÁNBUSZ Zrt.

Defendant: Bács-Kiskun Vármegyei Kormányhivatal

Questions referred

1.

Can the concept of ‘employer’s operational centre where the driver is normally based’, used in Article 9(3) of [Regulation No 561/2006], (1) be interpreted as meaning the place to which the driver is actually attached, in other words, the road passenger transport undertaking’s facilities or parking area, or another geographical point defined as the starting location of the route, from which the driver usually carries out his or her service and to which he or she returns at the end of that service, in the normal exercise of his or her functions and without complying with specific instructions from his or her employer?

2.

For the purposes of assessing whether a particular place constitutes an ‘employer’s operational centre where the driver is normally based’, within the meaning of Article 9(3) of [Regulation No 561/2006], does it matter whether or not the location has adequate facilities (for example, hygiene and welfare facilities, rest area)?

3.

For the purposes of assessing whether a particular place constitutes an ‘employer’s operational centre where the driver is normally based’, for the purposes of Article 9(3) of [Regulation No 561/2006], does it matter whether the location of places to which drivers are actually attached is favourable to workers (drivers) in that they are, in any event, situated closer to their homes than the establishments and branches of the undertaking recorded in the Commercial Register, with the result that the drivers’ required travelling time is shorter than it would be if they were to start and finish work in those establishments or branches?

4.

If the term ‘employer’s operational centre where the driver is normally based’, used in Article 9(3) of [Regulation No 561/2006], cannot be defined as the place to which the driver is actually attached, in other words, the road passenger transport undertaking’s facilities or parking area, or another geographical point defined as the starting location of the route, from which the driver usually carries out his or her service and to which he or she returns at the end of that service, in the normal exercise of his or her functions and without complying with specific instructions from his or her employer, should the definition of that term in [Regulation No 561/2006] be treated as a measure regarding working conditions, in respect of which the two sides of industry are able to lay down, by collective bargaining or otherwise, provisions more favourable to workers, in the light of recital 5 of the regulation?


(1)  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 2006 L 102, p. 1).


Top