Case C-33/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrajno Sodišče Pliberk (Austria) lodged on 23 January 2017 — Čepelnik d.o.o. v Michael Vavti
Date: 2017-01-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, administrative cooperation, administrative sanction, establishment, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, payment, provision of services, right of establishment








C_2017086EN.01002001.xml










20.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okrajno Sodišče Pliberk (Austria) lodged on 23 January 2017 — Čepelnik d.o.o. v Michael Vavti
(Case C-33/17)
(2017/C 086/24)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Okrajno Sodišče Pliberk

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Čepelnik d.o.o.

Defendant: Michael Vavti

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 56 TFEU and Directive 2014/67/EU 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 to be interpreted as meaning that they prohibit a Member State from imposing a payment stop and the payment of a surety equal to the outstanding fee for work rendered on the domestic customer if the payment stop and the payment of the surety serve only to secure a possible fine, which would be imposed subsequently in separate proceedings against a service provider established in another Member State?
If that question is answered in the negative:






a.


Are Article 56 TFEU and Directive 2014/67/EU 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 to be interpreted as meaning that they prohibit a Member State from imposing on the domestic customer a payment stop and the payment of a surety equal to the outstanding fee for work rendered if the service provider established in another Member State on whom a fine is to be imposed has no legal remedy against the imposition of a surety on the service provider established in another Member State in proceedings for the imposition of a surety and if the domestic customer’s appeal against that decision has no suspensory effect?










b.


Are Article 56 TFEU and Directive 2014/67/EU 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 to be interpreted as meaning that they prohibit a Member State from imposing on the domestic customer a payment stop and the payment of a surety equal to the outstanding fee for work rendered solely because the service provider is established in another Member State?










c.


Are Article 56 TFEU and Directive 2014/67/EU 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 to be interpreted as meaning that they prohibit a Member State from imposing on the domestic customer a payment stop and the payment of a surety equal to the outstanding fee for work rendered even though the fee is not yet due and the amount of the final fee has not yet been determined on account of counter claims and retention rights?