23.10.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/14

(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)

(2010/C 288/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RANI Slovakia s.r.o.

Defendant: Hankook Tire Magyarország Kft

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 3(c) EC, of Articles 49, 52 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 of the order

1.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 only those undertakings having their head office in the territory of that Member State or 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, which reserves the exercise of the activity of temporary employment undertaking to undertakings which have their head office in the territory of that Member State.

(*)

Language of the case: Hungarian