# C_2009267EN.01003201.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/32

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság Gazdasági Kollégiuma (Hungary) lodged on 29 July 2009 — RANI Slovakia s.r.o. v Hankook Tire Magyarország Kft.

(Case C-298/09)

2009/C 267/58

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság Gazdasági Kollégiuma

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RANI Slovakia s.r.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Hankook Tire Magyarország Kft.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In view of Articles 3(c) and 59 of the Treaty of Rome, can the 19th recital in the preamble to Directive 96/71/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services be interpreted as meaning that, in relation to the activity of temporary employment undertakings, the national law of a Member State may freely establish the requirements to be imposed on employers (undertakings) for the taking up and pursuit of such an activity in the territory of the Member State concerned and, in that regard, restrict the recognition of temporary employment undertakings to those undertakings established in its territory? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In view of Articles 3(c) and 59 of the Treaty of Rome, can the 19th recital in the preamble to Directive 96/71/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services be interpreted as meaning that, in relation to the activity of temporary employment undertakings, the national law of a Member State may freely establish the requirements to be imposed on employers (undertakings) for the taking up and pursuit of such an activity in the territory of the Member State concerned and, in that regard, restrict the recognition of temporary employment undertakings to those undertakings established in its territory?

1

| 2. | Can Article 1(4) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that, in relation to the authorisation to undertake their activity, undertakings established in the Member State in question may be given more favourable treatment than undertakings established in another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can Article 1(4) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that, in relation to the authorisation to undertake their activity, undertakings established in the Member State in question may be given more favourable treatment than undertakings established in another Member State?

| 3. | Can Articles 59, 62 and 63 of the Treaty of Rome, read together, be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions in place at the time of accession to the European Union may remain applicable, without being contrary to Community law, until the Council adopts a program laying down the conditions for the liberalisation of that type of service or the directives required for the implementation of that program? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can Articles 59, 62 and 63 of the Treaty of Rome, read together, be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions in place at the time of accession to the European Union may remain applicable, without being contrary to Community law, until the Council adopts a program laying down the conditions for the liberalisation of that type of service or the directives required for the implementation of that program?

| 4. | If the above questions are answered in the negative, is there any reason in the general interest justifying the restriction that the activity of temporary employment undertakings can be carried out only by undertakings which are established and registered in the Member State in question and thus making it possible to regard that restriction as being compatible with Articles 59 and 65 of the Treaty of Rome? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the above questions are answered in the negative, is there any reason in the general interest justifying the restriction that the activity of temporary employment undertakings can be carried out only by undertakings which are established and registered in the Member State in question and thus making it possible to regard that restriction as being compatible with Articles 59 and 65 of the Treaty of Rome?

---

(1)  OJ 1997 L l8, p. 1.

1

---