Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:344
Date: 2020-04-30
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Approximation of laws;Social Policy;Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Anonymised version 
Translation C-211/19 – 1 
Case C-211/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
6 March 2019 
Referring court: 
Miskolci Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Administrative and 
Social Court, Miskolc, Hungary) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
21 February 2019 
Applicant: 
UO 
Defendant: 
Készenléti Rendőrség 
  
In the proceedings brought by […] UO […] (Tiszakeszi […], Hungary), applicant, 
against the Készenléti Rendőrség (Rapid Intervention Police) ([…] Budapest […], 
Hungary), defendant, in order to claim payment for extraordinary duties, the 
Miskolci Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Administrative and Social Court, 
Miskolc, Hungary) […] has made the following  
Order: 
This court is making a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union for 
a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 1(3) and Article 2(1) and (2) 
of [Directive 2003/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time] and Article 2(2) of 
Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage 
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21.2.2019 — C-211/19  
 
2  
Anonymised version 
This court refers the following questions to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union: 
1 First: Must Article 1(3) of [Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and 
of the Council concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time] be 
interpreted as meaning that the scope ratione personae of that directive is 
determined by Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures 
to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work? 
2 Second: If so, must Article 2(2) of Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of 
measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work 
be interpreted as meaning that Article 2(1) and (2) of [Directive 2003/88/EC of 
the European Parliament and of the Council concerning certain aspects of the 
organisation of working time] is not to be applied to police officers who are 
members of the professional staff of the Rapid Intervention Police? 
3 [...] [matters of national procedural law] 
GROUNDS 
4 The Miskolci Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Administrative and Social 
Court, Miskolc) asks the Court of Justice of the European Union to interpret 
Article 1(3) and Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/88 and Article 2(2) of 
Directive 89/391. 
5 I. Subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings and relevant facts: 
6 The applicant became a member (police officer) of the professional staff of the 
Rapid Intervention Police Brigade on 1 January 2011 and has remained in that 
post ever since. On 1 September 2015, he was assigned as a patrol officer to the 
Border Protection Deployment Group of the Rapid Intervention Police [in 
Miskolc] […] [irrelevant aspects of the detailed organisational structure of the 
Hungarian police]. 
7 The Rapid Intervention Police is a section within the general police corps 
[Országos Rendőr-főkapitányság (Directorate General of the National Police; 
‘DGP’)] that was set up to perform certain tasks. The Rapid Intervention Police, 
which operates under the direct command of the DGP as a distinct section with its 
own special functions and powers exercising its authority throughout the national 
territory:- 
8 (a)  participates in the carrying out of unplanned activities requiring urgent and 
coordinated police team intervention, 
[…] [national provisions, irrelevant to the present case, defining certain duties 
which the border police in question may have to perform] 
KÉSZENLÉTI RENDŐRSÉG 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
34 From July 2015 to April 2017, acting in accordance with the A Magyar 
Köztársaság Rendőrségének Csapatszolgálati Szabályzatának kiadásáról szóló 
11/1998. (IV.23.) ORFK utasítás (DGP Instruction No 11/1998 of 23 April 1998 
on the Rules governing Team Operations by the Police of the Republic of 
Hungary, ‘Instruction No 11/1998’), the applicant, as part of a squadron on a state 
of alert, took part in border security tasks connected with the migrant situation. 
During that period, the border control activities were not carried out at the general 
location in (north-eastern) Miskolc but along the southern stretch of the border, in 
the district of Csongrád. During that period, his central place of deployment was 
the Police Training Centre in Szeged, the Border Police Post in Szeged or the 
premises of the Mórahalom post. As part of his border surveillance work, he was 
required to perform general policing tasks in accordance with the rules applicable 
to such activities.  
35 The applicant’s superior officer, exercising his executive authority, organised, in 
connection with the border control activities, extraordinary alert duties and on-call 
duties outside normal working hours, which had to be carried out in teams. 
36 The employer treated on-call periods as rest time. During on-call periods, the 
applicant had to remain permanently available to the defendant for deployment at 
very short notice. He was compelled to wait and even rest in uniform, with his 
other equipment and his police weapon to hand. This meant that the applicant had 
to be ready to discharge any duty entrusted to him by the defendant in less than 
fifteen minutes when the team was in a state of heightened alert and in less than an 
hour when it was in a state of general alert, which is to say, in practice, that he had 
to be ready to perform any duty. During on-call periods, therefore, the applicant 
could not move about freely or leave the place of residence (or barracks) or rest 
designated by the defendant. Everyday essentials (such as food, toiletries or 
cigarettes) could be purchased, by specific prior authorisation, only by the person 
specially so nominated, who also took care of the same needs for everyone else. 
37 The defendant did not regard on-call periods (during which the applicant was at its 
disposal) as working time. 
38 Submissions made by the applicant 
39 The applicant considers that, during on-call periods, he was in fact performing an 
alert duty in addition to his normal daily duty hours and that, for that alert duty, he 
was entitled to receive a payment for extraordinary duties rather than an on-call 
supplement. He also considers that all time spent on alert duty should be regarded 
as working time. 
40 The applicant claims that, in accordance with Instruction No 11/1998, the purpose 
of the alert duty is to keep the police team in readiness to take up its tasks as 
quickly as possible. This includes assembling, deploying and provisioning the 
police team, forming groups and establishing the distribution of the groups 
required, providing the material resources necessary for the police team’s 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21.2.2019 — C-211/19  
 
4  
Anonymised version 
activities, preparing the units and keeping them at the operational level 
established. The alert duty starts when the state of alert reaches a certain level and 
continues until such time as the alert is lifted or officers are transferred to other 
activities. A police team on alert duty – as was the case of the team to which the 
applicant belonged during the period to which the dispute relates – must be able to 
carry out the tasks specified in less than fifteen minutes in a state of heightened 
alert and in less than an hour in a state of general alert. The applicant submits that 
he was on general alert.  
41 The employer itself acknowledges that, in order to perform his duties in full, the 
applicant must be available at any time, and that this was the reason why it made 
the Police Training Centre in Szeged the place of residence during on-call periods. 
42 The applicant rejects the proposition that alert time must be treated as on-call time 
within the meaning of Paragraph 141(1) of the A rendvédelmi feladatokat ellátó 
szervek hivatásos állományának szolgálati jogviszonyáról szóló 2015. évi XLII. 
törvény (Law No XLII of 2015 governing the legal status of the professional staff 
law enforcement bodies; ‘Law No XLII of 2015’), since, in accordance with that 
provision, during on-call periods, the applicant would have been at liberty to 
choose a place of residence outside the place of work and would have been able to 
move around freely, whereas, during those hours, he had to remain at the place 
designated by the defendant and was obliged to make an immediate start on the 
tasks identified by his line manager. 
43 In addition to the foregoing, the applicant relies on the provision contained in 
Paragraph 102(1)(a) of Law No XLII of 2015, in accordance with which the time 
he spent on standby must also be regarded as time on duty. 
44 He further relies on the provision contained in Paragraph 103(1) of Law No XLII 
of 2015, in accordance with which he followed the order of his superior officers 
not to leave his barracks.  
45 The applicant also relies on Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/88 and the 
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-518/15 (paragraphs 57 and 59). 
46 Defence 
47 In its defence, the defendant, on the substance of the action, contests the legal 
basis of the applicant’s claim and contends that it should be dismissed. 
48 According to the defendant, the applicant has directed his claim against all of his 
squadron-based team duties. It takes the view that the applicant is subject to the 
provision contained in Paragraph 141(1) of Law No XLII of 2015 (according to 
which a superior officer may compel a member of professional staff to be 
prepared, when off duty and in the interests of the service, to take up duty at a 
place – other than the place of work – to which he may be sent and from which he 
may at any time be called upon to perform duty tasks) and states that it is not 
contrary to the rule contained in that paragraph for only certain members of the 
KÉSZENLÉTI RENDŐRSÉG 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
staff in question to be permitted to leave the place designated for an on-call 
period, or for staff to be prohibited from leaving the designated place. The need to 
have equipment and weapon to hand and the obligation to be in uniform during 
rest periods are circumstances that may fall within the scope of the expression 
‘ready for duty’ in the aforementioned provision. It considers that the applicant 
wrongly classifies as extraordinary alert duties the particular form of on-call 
periods completed in the context of unusual circumstances (the migrant situation). 
It denies the allegation that those on-call periods were periods of alert duty. 
49 National provisions applicable to the present case 
50 Law No XLII of 2015 
51 Paragraph 102(1)(a): 
52 A member of professional staff has the following obligations in relation to the 
performance of his duties: 
53 (a) to present himself at the place and time specified in readiness to take up duty, 
to maintain that readiness throughout the full length of the period of duty, and to 
perform the task entrusted to him and be available for that purpose. 
54 Paragraph 103(1). While on duty, a member of professional staff shall follow the 
orders of his senior officers, unless this would involve the commission of a 
criminal offence. 
55 Paragraph 141(1). A superior officer may compel a member of professional staff 
to be prepared, when off duty and in the interests of the service, to take up duty at 
a place – other than the place of work – to which he may be sent and from which 
he may at any time be called upon to perform duty tasks. 
56 In accordance with Paragraph 364(1), point 5, that Law, in conjunction with the 
regulations adopted under the enabling powers contained in Paragraphs 340 and 
341, transposes Directive 2003/88. 
57 A Rendőrségről szóló 1994. évi XXXIV. törvény (Law No XXXIV of 1994 on 
the police) 
58 Paragraph 58(1). Police officers may be deployed in teams 
[…] 
60 (b) in order to neutralise crowd situations that pose a risk to life or to the security 
of property or to prevent acts of violence that may have such consequences and to 
arrest the perpetrators; 
[…] [irrelevant provisions of national law] 
68 (j) in other situations provided for by law. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21.2.2019 — C-211/19  
 
6  
Anonymised version 
69 A Rendőrség szerveiről és a Rendőrség szerveinek feladat- és hatásköréről 
szóló 329/2007. (XII. 13.) Korm. rendelet (Government Decree No 329/2007 of 
13 December 2007 on police corps and regulating the tasks and powers of 
police corps) 
70 Paragraph 1. The central corps of the body set up to perform the general policing 
tasks defined in Law No XXXIV of 1994 on Policing (‘general police corps’) is 
the Directorate General of the National Police (‘DGP’), the headquarters of which 
shall be that specified in Annex 1. 
71 Paragraph 2(1). The following are brigades within the general police corps that are 
set up to perform certain tasks: 
72 (a) the Rapid Intervention Police, 
[…] [irrelevant provisions of national law] 
[…] [the wording of paragraphs 73 to 103 is identical to that of the previous 
paragraphs 7 to 33] 
A rendőrség szolgálati szabályzatáról szóló 30/2011. (IX. 22.) BM rendelet 
(Interior Ministry Order No 30/2011 of 22 September 2011 governing the 
police service) 
[…] [irrelevant provisions of national law that list the branches, services and 
specialist services of the police] 
131 Paragraph 51(1). In cases in which teams are used, the police service shall carry 
out its tasks by assembling staff members, organising them into teams and making 
them answerable to the orders of a single commander and subject to dedicated 
tactical rules. 
[…] [irrelevant national provisions regulating the power to organise police activity 
in a team context] 
138 Paragraph 84. The Chief Officer of the National Police, the Director General of 
the Anti-Terrorism Centre, the Director General of the National Defence Service, 
the Director General of Criminal Matters, the Director General of Security, the 
Commander of the Rapid Intervention Police, the Director of the Airport Police 
Directorate, the Director of the Technical Department for Criminal Matters of the 
Institute of Specialisation and Research in Criminal Matters, the Chief Officer of 
the District or Capital Police, the Chief Police Officer and Director of the Border 
Security Agency may organise on-call periods for corps, organisational units and 
other organisational structures under their control. 
139 Relevant paragraphs of Instruction No 11/1998 
KÉSZENLÉTI RENDŐRSÉG 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
140 1. Team duty is a specific form of duty for the performance of policing tasks 
whereby police officers are organised into teams. The constituent elements of 
team duty are the task, the operational unit and the activities undertaken as a team. 
[…] 
142 […] [irrelevant provisions of national law] 
143 Relief during the conduct of police team activities consists in the handover and 
taking over, at the place where the activity is taking place, of tasks, places of duty, 
areas of operations or specific sectors. Relief may take place between particular 
police officers, duty groups, groupings or sub-units in order to meet needs 
connected with staff resourcing and rest periods, the operational capability of 
technical resources and preparations for carrying out new tasks.  
144 Quartering consists in the prolonged stay of police teams in a police or other 
building (or barracks) or, in exceptional circumstances, in camps for the purposes 
of meeting needs connected with rest periods and provisions for officers, the 
operational capability of technical resources, preparations for a particular task or 
the organisation of on-call periods or units. 
145 Police team alert duty  
146 The purpose of the alert duty is to keep the police team in readiness to start its 
work at the shortest possible notice. It includes assembling, deploying and 
provisioning the police team, forming groups and establishing the distribution of 
the groups required, providing the material resources necessary for the police 
team’s activities, preparing the units and keeping them at the operational level 
established. 
147 14. The police team may be put on alert duty by way of pre-planned mobilisation 
with knowledge of the tasks envisaged or by way of orderly mobilisation in a 
contingency situation. The latter scenario may arise in particular where an alert 
duty has already been commenced for particular tasks and a new alert duty needs 
to be organised but the deployment of police officers mobilised for other forms of 
duty is not possible or adequate. 
148 15. Police teams on alert duty must as far as possible remain within their own 
barracks. Where circumstances so warrant, other police or non-police facilities 
may be used, as may camp accommodation. Police officer groups may perform 
alert duties along permanent or temporary organisational lines or in different duty 
groups. 
149 17. The readiness of a police team on alert duty will reflect the speed with which 
the team is able to start a given task. That will depend upon the extent to which 
the commander of the unit has previously determined the conditions that must be 
present in order for the task to start. Depending on whether or not those conditions 
are present, the police team may be on heightened alert or on general alert. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21.2.2019 — C-211/19  
 
8  
Anonymised version 
150 19. The alert duty starts when the state of alert reaches a certain level and will 
continue until such time as the alert is lifted or officers are transferred to other 
activities. A police team on alert duty must be able to perform the tasks specified 
in less than fifteen minutes when it is in a state of heightened alert and in less than 
an hour when it is in a state of general alert. The head of the police unit ordering 
the use of the police team may reduce the normal time limits depending on the 
nature of the task envisaged or the preparedness of the group. 
151 Provisions of EU law the interpretation of which is sought in the present case 
152 Council Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage 
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1). 
153 Article 2 (Scope). 
154 (1) This Directive shall apply to all sectors of activity, both public and private 
(industrial, agricultural, commercial, administrative, service, educational, cultural, 
leisure, etc.). 
155 (2) This Directive shall not be applicable where characteristics peculiar to certain 
specific public service activities, such as the armed forces or the police, or to 
certain specific activities in the civil protection services inevitably conflict with it.  
156 In that event, the safety and health of workers must be ensured as far as possible 
in the light of the objectives of this Directive. 
157 Directive 2003/88 
158 Article 1. 
159 Purpose and scope. 
160 1. This Directive lays down minimum safety and health requirements for the 
organisation of working time. 
161 2. This Directive applies to:  
162 (a) minimum periods of daily rest, weekly rest and annual leave, to breaks and 
maximum weekly working time; and  
163 (b) certain aspects of night work, shift work and patterns of work. 
164 3. This Directive shall apply to all sectors of activity, both public and private, 
within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC, without prejudice to 
Articles 14, 17, 18 and 19 of this Directive.  
165 This Directive shall not apply to seafarers, as defined in Directive 1999/63/EC 
without prejudice to Article 2(8) of this Directive. 
KÉSZENLÉTI RENDŐRSÉG 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
166 4. The provisions of Directive 89/391/EEC are fully applicable to the matters 
referred to in paragraph 2, without prejudice to more stringent and/or specific 
provisions contained in this Directive.  
167 Article 2 (Definitions) 
168 For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply: 
169 (1) ‘working time’ means any period during which the worker is working, at the 
employer’s disposal and carrying out his activity or duties, in accordance with 
national laws and/or practice; 
170 (2) ‘rest period’ means any period which is not working time. 
171 Reasons for [seeking] an interpretation of the provisions of EU law 
172 In accordance with Paragraph 361(1), point 5, of Law No XLII of 2015, 
mentioned above, that Law transposes Directive 2003/88. Nonetheless, it does not 
define the concepts either of working time or of rest periods. 
173 In the present case, the applicant bases his claim, in the alternative, on the 
Hungarian legislation and on the provisions contained in Article 2(1) and (2) of 
Directive 2003/88. 
174 However, the referring court has some fundamental doubts as to whether Article 
2(1) and (2) of that directive is applicable to the applicant in his capacity as a 
member of the Rapid Intervention Police, given that, in this instance, he 
performed, as a police officer, a different task in other than normal circumstances. 
175 For that reason, the referring court asks the Court of Justice of the European 
Union, first, to interpret Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88 in order to ascertain the 
scope ratione personae of that directive and to determine whether Article 2 of 
Directive 89/391 is applicable in that context.  
176 In the event that [Article 2] is to be applied, the Court is also asked to determine 
whether the activity carried out in this instance by a police officer who is a 
member of the professional staff of the Hungarian Rapid Intervention Police 
exhibits characteristics peculiar to the public service which inevitably conflict 
with the application of Directive 89/391 and Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 
2003/88, applicable under the first of those directives. 
177 Position of the referring court 
178 As regards the first question raised, the referring court considers that Article 1(3) 
of Directive 2003/88 is to be interpreted as meaning that the scope ratione 
personae of that directive is determined by Article 2 of Directive 89/391. It takes 
the view that this, at least, is what follows from Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 21.2.2019 — C-211/19  
 
10  
Anonymised version 
179 As regards the second question raised, the referring court considers that, as a 
special corps within the police service responsible for performing general policing 
functions, the Rapid Intervention Police does not perform general policing 
functions, but carries out special tasks defined by legislation, and that, in this case, 
the applicant was also required to perform general policing functions. Since the 
applicant is on the staff of a unit within that special corps and has, in that 
framework, carried out policing activities peculiar to the public service, Article 2 
of Directive 2003/88 is not applicable to him.  
Budapest, 19 February 2019. 
[signatures]