# C_2021471EN.01001901.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Miskolci Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 August 2021 — IH v MÁV-START Vasúti Személyszállító Zrt.

(Case C-477/21)

(2021/C 471/27)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Miskolci Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IH

Defendant: MÁV-START Vasúti Személyszállító Zrt.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 5 of 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, (1) read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], be interpreted as meaning that the daily rest period provided for in Article 3 [of that directive] forms part of the weekly rest period? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 5 of 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, (1) read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], be interpreted as meaning that the daily rest period provided for in Article 3 [of that directive] forms part of the weekly rest period?

| 2. | Otherwise, must Article 5 of Directive [2003/88], read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that, in accordance with the objective pursued by the directive, the aforementioned article lays down only the minimum duration of the weekly rest period, which is to say that the weekly rest period must be at least 35 consecutive hours’ long, provided that there are no objective, technical or work organisation conditions which preclude this? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Otherwise, must Article 5 of Directive [2003/88], read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that, in accordance with the objective pursued by the directive, the aforementioned article lays down only the minimum duration of the weekly rest period, which is to say that the weekly rest period must be at least 35 consecutive hours’ long, provided that there are no objective, technical or work organisation conditions which preclude this?

| 3. | Must Article 5 of Directive [2003/88], read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that, where the law of the Member State and the applicable collective agreement provide for the grant of a continuous weekly rest period of at least 42 hours, it is compulsory, following work which has been performed on the working day prior to the weekly rest period, also to grant the twelve-hour daily rest period guaranteed along with it under the relevant legislation of that Member State and the applicable collective agreement, provided that there are no objective, technical or work organisation conditions which preclude this? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 5 of Directive [2003/88], read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that, where the law of the Member State and the applicable collective agreement provide for the grant of a continuous weekly rest period of at least 42 hours, it is compulsory, following work which has been performed on the working day prior to the weekly rest period, also to grant the twelve-hour daily rest period guaranteed along with it under the relevant legislation of that Member State and the applicable collective agreement, provided that there are no objective, technical or work organisation conditions which preclude this?

| 4. | Must Article 3 of Directive [2003/88], read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that a worker is entitled to a minimum rest period which must be granted within the course of 24 hours even if, for any reason, he or she does not have to work in the following 24 hours? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must Article 3 of Directive [2003/88], read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that a worker is entitled to a minimum rest period which must be granted within the course of 24 hours even if, for any reason, he or she does not have to work in the following 24 hours?

| 5. | If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative, must Articles 3 and 5 of Directive [2003/88], read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that the daily rest period [must] be granted prior to the weekly rest period? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative, must Articles 3 and 5 of Directive [2003/88], read in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that the daily rest period [must] be granted prior to the weekly rest period?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

---