Judgment_paragraph 22 · Zoran Maksimovic and Others v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal and Finanzpolizei (C-64/18, C-140/18, C-146/18, C-148/18)

22In those circumstances, the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Regional Administrative Court, Styria) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:In Case C‑64/18:(1) Must Article 56 TFEU, [Directive 96/71] and [Directive 2014/67] be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as the failure by the hiring-out entity to make wage records available to the third-party employer, provides for heavy fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?(2) If the first question itself is not answered in the affirmative:Must Article 56 TFEU, [Directive 96/71] and [Directive 2014/67] be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines in the case of infringements of formal requirements in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits?’In Case C‑140/18:(1) Must Article 56 TFEU, [Directive 96/71] and [Directive 2014/67] be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour, such as the failure by the hiring-out entity to provide wage records to the third-party employer, provides for heavy fines, in particular high minimum penalties, which are imposed cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned?(2) If the first question itself is not answered in the affirmative:Must Article 56 TFEU, [Directive 96/71] and [Directive 2014/67] be interpreted as precluding the imposition of cumulative fines for infringements of formal obligations in connection with the cross-border deployment of labour which have no absolute upper limits?(3) If the answer to the first question or the second question is not in the affirmative:Must Article 49(3) of the [Charter] be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides for heavy fines with no upper limit and, in the event of non-payment, several years’ imprisonment for offences committed as a result of negligence?’In Case C‑146/18:‘Must Articles 47 and 49 of the [Charter] be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides for a mandatory contribution to the procedural costs of appeal proceedings of 20% of the fine imposed?’In Case C‑148/18:‘Must Article 49(3) of the [Charter] be interpreted as precluding a national provision which provides for heavy fines with no upper limit, in particular for high minimum penalties and, in the event of non-payment several years’ imprisonment for offences committed as a result of negligence?’