Official Journal of the European Union

Series C

C/2023/749

(Case C-544/23, BAJI Trans)

(C/2023/749)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants in cassation: T.T. and BAJI Trans, s.r. o.

Respondent in cassation: Národný inšpektorát práce

Questions referred

1.Is Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is implementing Union law when it imposes, under national law, an administrative penalty for failure to fulfil an obligation where that obligation arises from EU law and the Member States are required to penalise failure to fulfil it, as in the case of Article 19(1) of Regulation No 3821/85 (1) and Article 41(1) of Regulation No 165/2014? (2)

2.If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of lex posterior mitius laid down therein to be interpreted as also applying to the imposition of penalties for administrative offences in cases where the guilt and the penalty are first decided not by a judicial body but by an administrative body, and does this principle then also apply to the review of the decisions of that administrative body by an administrative court?

3.If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, are Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of lex posterior mitius laid down therein to be interpreted as applying to national administrative or judicial proceedings, regardless of the current stage of those proceedings?

4.If the answer to the third question is in the negative, by what criteria should that stage be determined? More specifically, are Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of lex posterior mitius laid down therein to be interpreted as applying in the context of contentious administrative proceedings concerning an appeal in cassation, and must the Supreme Administrative Court before which that appeal in cassation has been brought at second and final instance therefore take into account a legislative amendment in favour of the perpetrator of the administrative offence which was the subject of the proceedings before the administrative body, rather than the court which was affected by the amendment only after the decision of the lower administrative court that is subject to review became final?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8).

(2) Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ 2014 L 60, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/749/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)