-
Question
Must Article 56 TFEU and Directive 2014/67 be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the competent authorities can order a commissioning party established in that Member State to suspend payments to his contractor established in another Member State, or even to pay a security in an amount equivalent to the price still owed for the works in order to guarantee payment of the fine which might be imposed on that contractor in the event of a proven infringement of the labour law of the first Member State?
-
Ruling
Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the competent authorities can order a commissioning party established in that Member State to suspend payments to his contractor established in another Member State, or even to pay a security in an amount equivalent to the price still owed for the works in order to guarantee payment of the fine which might be imposed on that contractor in the event of a proven infringement of the labour law of the first Member State.
DOI: 10.5553/EELC/187791072018003004025
European Employment Law Cases |
|
| Rulings | ECJ 13 November 2018, case C-432/17 (Cepelnik), Other forms of free movementCepelnik d.o.o. – v – Michael Vavti, Austrian case |
| Trefwoorden | Other forms of free movement |
| DOI | 10.5553/EELC/187791072018003004025 |
|
Toon PDF Toon volledige grootte Samenvatting Statistiek Citeerwijze |
| Dit artikel is keer geraadpleegd. |
| Dit artikel is 0 keer gedownload. |
Aanbevolen citeerwijze bij dit artikel
, "ECJ 13 November 2018, case C-432/17 (Cepelnik), Other forms of free movement", European Employment Law Cases, 4, (2018):60-60
, "ECJ 13 November 2018, case C-432/17 (Cepelnik), Other forms of free movement", European Employment Law Cases, 4, (2018):60-60
|
|
Dit artikel wordt geciteerd in
Inhoud