CELEX: 62011CN0254
Language: en
Date: 2011-05-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-254/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the Republic of Hungary (Hungary) lodged on 25 May 2011 — Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Rendőrkapitányság Záhony Határrendészeti Kirendeltsége v Shomodi Oskar

6.8.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 232/17
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the Republic of Hungary (Hungary) lodged on 25 May 2011 — Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Rendőrkapitányság Záhony Határrendészeti Kirendeltsége v Shomodi Oskar
   (Case C-254/11)
   2011/C 232/29
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   
      Referring court
   
   The Supreme Court of the Republic of Hungary
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Rendőrkapitányság Záhony Határrendészeti Kirendeltsége
   
      Defendant: Shomodi Oskar
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               With particular regard to Article 2(a) and Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 (‘Local Border Traffic Regulation’), is the provision in Article 5 of that Regulation, which permits an uninterrupted stay not exceeding three months, to be interpreted in such a way that the Regulation allows multiple exits and entries, and an uninterrupted stay not exceeding three months on the basis of bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries under Article 13 in such a way that a border resident in possession of a local border traffic certificate may interrupt the uninterrupted stay prior to the expiry of the three-month period available for the stay, and then be entitled to a further uninterrupted stay of three months once he has crossed the border again?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               In the event that the answer to the first question is yes, may an exit and entry occurring on the same day or on consecutive days be regarded as an interruption of an uninterrupted stay under Article 5 of the Local Border Traffic Regulation?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               In the event that the answer to the first question is yes, but the answer to the second question is no, what time interval or other examination criterion needs to be taken into consideration to establish an interruption of an uninterrupted stay, under Article 5 of the Local Border Traffic Regulation?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               In the event that the answer to the first question is no, might the provision of Article 5 of the Local Border Traffic Regulation which permits an uninterrupted stay not exceeding three months be interpreted in such a way that the time elapsing over multiple exits and entries must be counted together, and as meaning that, in view of Article 20(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 4 June 1985 (Schengen Implementing Convention, OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19; ‘SIC’), or other rules relating to Schengen law, if the total number of days exceeds 93 days (three months), the local border traffic permit does not provide entitlement to any further stay within six months of the date of first entry?
            
         
               5.
            
            
               In the event that the answer to the fourth question is yes, must multiple exits and entries occurring on the same day, or a single exit and entry on the same day, also be taken into account for the total and, if so, using what counting method?
            
         
      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 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 (OJ 2006 L 405, p. 1).