CELEX: 62011CA0254
Language: en
Date: 2013-03-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-254/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága — Hungary) — Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Rendőrkapitányság Záhony Határrendészeti Kirendeltsége v Oskar Shomodi (Area of freedom, security and justice — ‘Local border traffic’ at the external land borders of the Member States — Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 — Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 — Maximum duration of stay — Rules for calculation)

1.6.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 156/4
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága — Hungary) — Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Rendőrkapitányság Záhony Határrendészeti Kirendeltsége v Oskar Shomodi
   (Case C-254/11) (1)
   
   (Area of freedom, security and justice - ‘Local border traffic’ at the external land borders of the Member States - Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Maximum duration of stay - Rules for calculation)
   2013/C 156/05
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Rendőrkapitányság Záhony Határrendészeti Kirendeltsége
   
      Defendant: Oskar Shomodi
   
      Re:
   
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága — Interpretation of Article 2(a)(3), points 3 and 5 of Council and Parliament Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of 20 December 2006 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), and of the other relevant provisions of the Schengen acquis — Rejection of the application to enter the territory of a Member State made by a national of a third country in the context of the regime governing local border traffic, on the ground that the cumulative total of individual stays undertaken by the person concerned in the Member State at issue during the six-month period preceding the application for entry in question had exceeded the maximum permissible duration — Rules for calculation of the maximum duration of stay under the local border traffic regime
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               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 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.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 5 of Regulation No 1931/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that there is an interruption of stay, as referred to in that provision, 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.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.