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
C series
—
11.11.2024
(Case C-164/23,
VOLÁNBUSZ)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Harmonisation of certain provisions of social legislation - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 9(3) - Concept of ‘employer’s operational centre where the driver is normally based’ - Place where a driver takes charge of a vehicle falling within the scope of that regulation - Concept of ‘other work’ - Time spent by that driver driving a vehicle falling outside the scope of that regulation to travel to or from that operational centre)
(C/2024/6619)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Applicant: VOLÁNBUSZ Zrt.
Defendant: Bács-Kiskun Vármegyei Kormányhivatal
Article 9(3) 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 meaning that the concept of ‘employer’s operational centre where the driver is normally based’ set out in that provision designates a place, such as an external depot for vehicles falling within the scope of that regulation, from which the driver concerned usually carries out his or her shift and to which he or she returns at the end of that shift, in the normal exercise of his or her functions and without complying with specific instructions from his or her employer in that regard. Whether sanitary facilities or social or rest areas are present at such a place is irrelevant in that regard. However, the geographical proximity of the place of residence of that driver may be taken into account, without being decisive in itself.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6619/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—
*
Language of the case: Hungarian.