Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:182
Date: 2013-03-21
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Border checks
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 21 March 2013 1. Border controls, asylum and immigration — ‘Local border traffic’ at the external land borders of the Member States — Regulation No 1931/2006 — Independent interpretation — Maximum duration of stay within the border area — Rules for calculation (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement; European Parliament and Council Regulations Nos 562/2001 and 1931/2006, Art. 5) 2. Border controls, asylum and immigration — ‘Local border traffic’ at the external land borders of the Member States — Regulation No 1931/2006 — Maximum duration of stay within the border area — Interruption of stay — Point from which time starts to run — Crossing of the border between the neighbouring Member State and the country of residence of the holder of a local border traffic permit — Frequency of crossings irrelevant (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1931/2006, Art. 5) 1. Regulation No 1931/2006 laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the Member States and amending the provisions of the Schengen Convention must be interpreted as meaning that the holder of a local border traffic permit granted under the special local border traffic regime established by that regulation must be able, within the limits laid down in that regulation and in the bilateral agreement concluded for its implementation between the third country of which he is a national and the neighbouring Member State, to move freely within the border area for a period of three months if his stay is uninterrupted and to have a new right to a three-month stay each time that his stay is interrupted. Both the wording and the spirit of Regulation No 1931/2006 demand that its provisions be given an autonomous interpretation and not be interpreted in the light of the Schengen acquis. Article 5 of the regulation leaves to bilateral agreements the task of determining the maximum permissible duration ‘of each uninterrupted stay’, subject to the three‑month limit. That specification clearly distinguishes, as does the wording in which it is framed, between the limitation in time of local border traffic, on the one hand, and the ‘Schengen limitation’, which is wholly unrelated to uninterrupted stays, on the other. The fact that that limitation is set at three months, just as it is under the Schengen acquis, cannot cast doubt on its special nature in relation to the ordinary rules in place for third-country nationals who are not subject to visa requirements, since there is nothing in Regulation No 1931/2006 to suggest that those three months must fall within one and the same six‑month period. Moreover, the European Union legislature intended to put rules in place for local border traffic which derogate from Regulation No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders. The purpose of those rules is to enable the residents of the border areas concerned – while, at the same time, taking account of local, current and historical realities – to cross the external land borders of the European Union for legitimate economic, social, cultural or family reasons, and to do so easily – that is to say, without excessive administrative constraints – and frequently, even regularly. (see paras 23, 24, 26, operative part 1) 2. Article 5 of Regulation No 1931/2006 laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the Member States and amending the provisions of the Schengen Convention must be interpreted as meaning that there is an interruption of stay upon the crossing of the border between the neighbouring Member State and the third country in which the holder of the local border traffic permit resides, in accordance with the conditions laid down in that permit, irrespective of the frequency of such crossings, even if they occur several times daily. (see para. 29, operative part 2)