- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-211/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Miskolci Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 6 March 2019 — UO v Készenléti Rendőrség
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0211
62019CN0211
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
3.6.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 187/41
(Case C-211/19)
(2019/C 187/45)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: UO
Defendant: Készenléti Rendőrség
Questions referred
1.Must Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) be interpreted as meaning that the scope ratione personae of that directive is determined by Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work? (2)
2.If so, must Article 2(2) of Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work be interpreted as meaning that Article 2(1) and (2) of [Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time] is not to be applied to police officers who are members of the professional staff of the Rapid Intervention Police?
(1) Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
(2) OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.