EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62009CO0298

Rješenje Suda (šesto vijeće) od 16. lipnja 2010.
RANI Slovakia s. r. o. protiv Hankook Tire Magyarország kft.
Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku: Fővárosi Bíróság - Mađarska.
Slobodno pružanje usluga - Direktiva 96/71/EZ.
Predmet C-298/09.

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2010:343





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2010 – RANI Slovakia v Hankook Tire Magyarország

(Case C‑298/09)

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Accession to the European Union – Freedom to provide services – Directive 96/71/EC – Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services – Temporary employment undertaking – Requirement to have a head office in the territory of the Member State in which the services are supplied

1.                     Freedom to provide services – Provisions of the Treaty – Applicability to the new Member States – Hungary (Arts 49 EC to 54 EC; Act of Accession 2003, Arts 2, 53 and 54) (see paras 37-39, operative part 1)

2.                     Freedom to provide services – Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services – Directive 96/71 (European Parliament and Council Directive 96/71, Recital 19 and Art. 1(4) (see paras 47-51, operative part 2)

3.                     Freedom to provide services – Restrictions – Temporary employment undertaking (Arts 49 EC to 54 EC) (see paras 56-58, operative part 3)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Fővárosi Bíróság – Interpretation of Article 3(c) EC, of Articles 49 EC, 52 EC and 54 EC, and of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) – National legislation restricting the undertaking of the activity of temporary employment undertakings to those undertakings established in national territory.

Operative part:

1.

Declares that Articles 49 EC to 54 EC cannot be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s legislation concerning the activity of temporary employment undertakings, in force at the time of accession of that State to the European Union, remains valid so long as the Council of the European Union has not adopted a programme or directives for the purpose of implementing those provisions, with a view to laying down the conditions for liberalisation of the category of supply of services in question.

2.

Neither the 19th recital in the preamble to Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services nor Article 1(4) thereof can be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may reserve the exercise of the activity of temporary employment undertaking to those undertakings alone that have their head office in the territory of that Member State or may treat them more favourably with regard to authorisation of the activity in question than undertakings established in another Member State.

3.

Articles 49 EC to 54 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that reserves the exercise of the activity of temporary employment undertaking to undertakings having their head office in the territory of that Member State.

Top