62018CO0645_INF
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 — Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld
(Case C‑645/18) (
1
)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers — Article 56 TFEU — Directive 2014/67/EU — Articles 9 and 20 — Reporting of workers — Retention of records of wages — Penalties — Proportionality — Fines of a predefined minimum amount — Cumulative — No upper limit — Court fees)
Freedom to provide services — Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services — Directive 2014/67 — Administrative requirements and control measures — Labour law obligations relating to the reporting of workers and the retention of records of wages — Penalties for failure to comply — Imposition of fines of a predefined amount — Cumulation of fines — No cap — Legal costs amounting to 20% of the amount of the fine in the event of rejection of the appeal brought against that fine — Not permissible — Justification — None — Breach of principle of proportionality
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2014/67)
(see paras 21, 28, 29, 32-41, 43, operative part)
Operative part
Article 20 of Directive 2014/67/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which lays down, in the event of non-compliance with labour law obligations relating to the reporting of workers and the retention of records of wages, the imposition of high fines:
–
which may not be lower than a predefined amount;
–
which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned and without an upper limit, and
–
to which is added a contribution to court costs of 20% of the amount of the fines if the appeal against the decision imposing those fines is dismissed.
(
1
)	OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.