# C_2010195EN.01000701.xml

| 17.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Biróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 May 2010 — Márton Urbán v Vám- és Pénzügyörség Észak-alföldi regionális Parancsnoksága

(Case C-210/10)

2010/C 195/11

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Biróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Márton Urbán

Applicant:

Defendant: Vám- és Pénzügyörség Észak-alföldi regionális Parancsnoksága

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a system of penalties under which it is mandatory to impose identical financial penalties of up to HUF 100 000 for any breach of the requirements laid down in Articles 13 to 16 of Council Regulation No 3821/85/EEC (1) concerning the use of record sheets for recording equipment in road transport consistent with the requirement of proportionality laid down by Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (2) 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? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a system of penalties under which it is mandatory to impose identical financial penalties of up to HUF 100 000 for any breach of the requirements laid down in Articles 13 to 16 of Council Regulation No 3821/85/EEC (1) concerning the use of record sheets for recording equipment in road transport consistent with the requirement of proportionality laid down by Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (2) 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?

1

2

| 2. | Is a system of penalties which does not adjust the amount of the penalty according to the gravity of the breach of the rules consistent with the requirement of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a system of penalties which does not adjust the amount of the penalty according to the gravity of the breach of the rules consistent with the requirement of proportionality?

| 3. | Is a system of penalties which does not allow of any possible defence to a breach of the rules consistent with the requirement of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is a system of penalties which does not allow of any possible defence to a breach of the rules consistent with the requirement of proportionality?

| 4. | Is a system of penalties which makes no distinction according to the personal circumstances of the offenders consistent with the requirement of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is a system of penalties which makes no distinction according to the personal circumstances of the offenders consistent with the requirement of proportionality?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport; OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8, Special edition in Hungarian, Chapter 7, Volume 1, p. 227.

1

(2)  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 (Text with EEA relevance) — Declaration; OJ 1998 L 102, p. 1.

2

---