(Reference for a preliminary ruling– Freedom to provide services– Posting of workers– Directive 96/71

7GVAS s.r.o., a company established in Slovakia, posted several workers to Austria.

8On the basis of findings made during a check carried out on 19June 2016, the district administrative authority, Hartberg-Fürstenfeld imposed a fine of EUR6600 on LM, in its capacity as the representative of GVAS, on the basis of Paragraph7i(5) of the AVRAG, because of failure to comply , with obligations relating to remuneration in respect of four posted workers.

9LM was notified of that decision on 20February 2020.

10LM brought an appeal against that decision before the referring court, the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Regional Administrative Court, Styria, Austria).

11That court states that it has doubts as to the compatibility with EU law of Paragraph7i(7) of the AVRAG, which provides for a five-year limitation period for the offence which LM is alleged to have committed under Paragraph7i(5) of the AVRAG. That court finds that such a period is particularly long as regards a petty offence committed under administrative criminal law as a result of negligence and that it is not certain that a person will be able to defend himself or herself adequately, particularly where that defence takes place almost five years after the facts complained of.

12In 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:

‘Must Article6 [ECHR] and Article41(1) and the second paragraph of Article47 of the [Charter] be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides for a mandatory five-year limitation period in the case of an offence committed as a result of negligence in administrative-offence proceedings?’