1) This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 18 and 56 TFEU and of Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

...

15) According to Google Ireland, taxpayers established abroad are also in a less favourable situation than companies established in Hungary as regards the exercise of the right to an effective remedy. Although they have the right to judicial review of a decision imposing a fine on them, which is, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 7/B and 7/D of the Law on the taxation of advertisements, final and enforceable merely by notification thereof, the rules governing the exercise of that right, however, restrict its scope. In particular, in the judicial review procedure under Article 7/B(4) of the Law on the taxation of advertisements, the court with jurisdiction can admit only documentary evidence and gives judgment without holding a hearing, whereas the objection procedure applicable to domestic taxpayers under the Law on general tax procedures is not subject to such limitations, since such taxpayers would have, inter alia, the right to bring an administrative law action. The provisions of the Law on the taxation of advertisements do not therefore afford the person fined the right to an effective remedy or a fair trial, as provided for in Article 47 of the Charter.

16) In that context, the referring court asks whether Articles 7/B and 7/D of the Law on the taxation of advertisements are compatible with Article 56 TFEU and the principle of non-discrimination. According to that court, the obligation to submit a tax declaration and the fines for failure to comply with that obligation — fines forming part of a very repressive and punitive system of penalties — are highly detrimental to companies established outside of Hungary and are in fact likely to restrict the freedom to provide services in the European Union. It considers in particular, as far as concerns the fines for failure to comply with the obligation to submit a tax declaration which were imposed on those companies, that the principle of proportionality was probably not observed in the present case. In that regard, it points, first, to the fact that a series of fines may be imposed on those taxpayers in five days during which the tax authority can triple the amount of the previous fine every day. Those penalties apply even before taxpayers are able to have notice of the daily tripling of the amount of the previous fine and before they can remedy the infringement, thus making it impossible for them to prevent the final fine from reaching the ceiling of HUF 1000000000 (EUR 3100000). In the referring court’s view, that fact can also give rise to the question of the compatibility of that administrative procedure with Article 41 of the Charter. Second, the referring court notes that the amount of the fine imposed under Article 7/D of the Law on the taxation of advertisements is, in total, up to 2000 times higher than that of the fine which may be imposed on a company established in Hungary which does not comply with the obligation to register for tax purposes laid down in Article 172 of the Law on general tax procedures.

17) Lastly, the referring court raises the question of compliance with Article 47 of the Charter in so far as, in the context of the judicial review procedure provided for in Article 7/B(4) of the Law on the taxation of advertisements, unlike the ordinary procedure for administrative law actions, only documentary evidence is admitted, since the court with jurisdiction cannot hold a hearing.

18) On the ground that the case-law of the Court does not provide an answer to those questions, the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Budapest Administrative and Labour Court, Hungary) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) Should Articles 18 and 56 [TFEU] and the prohibition on discrimination be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s tax legislation in which the penalty provisions require, for breach of the obligation to register for the purposes of an advertisement tax, the imposition of a fine for failure to comply, the total amount of which, for companies not established in Hungary, can be, in total, 2000 times greater than the amount of the fine for companies established in Hungary?

(2) Can the penalty described in the previous question, which involves a markedly large sum and is punitive in nature, be considered as capable of discouraging service providers who are not established in Hungary from providing services in that country?

(3) Should Article 56 TFEU and the prohibition on discrimination be interpreted as precluding legislation under which, for undertakings established in Hungary, the obligation to register is satisfied automatically, without making an explicit application, through the [mere] allocation of a Hungarian tax identification number as part of the process of registering with the Companies Registry, irrespective of whether or not the undertaking publishes advertisements, whereas for undertakings that are not established in Hungary but that publish advertisements in that country it is not satisfied automatically, and instead they have specifically to comply with the obligation to register, and can be subject to a specific penalty if they fail to do so?

(4) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should Article 56 TFEU and the prohibition on discrimination be interpreted as precluding a penalty such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, imposed for breach of the obligation to register for the purposes of an advertisement tax, in so far as the aforesaid legislation may be contrary to that article?

(5) Should Article 56 TFEU and the prohibition on discrimination be interpreted as precluding a provision under which the decision to impose a fine on an undertaking established abroad is final and enforceable from the moment when notice of it is served, and the decision may be contested only through judicial proceedings in which the court may not hold a hearing and only documentary evidence is admissible, while fines imposed on undertakings established in Hungary may be contested in an administrative procedure and, moreover, the judicial proceedings are not restricted in any way?

([6]) Should Article 56 TFEU, read in the light of the right to good administration in Article 41(1) of the [Charter], be interpreted as meaning that that requirement is not satisfied where the fine for failure to comply is imposed in the form of a fine the amount of which is tripled each day in such a way that the service provider, given that it still unaware of the earlier decision, is therefore unable to remedy its omission before the imposition of the next fine?

([7]) Should Article 56 TFEU, read with the right to good administration in Article 41(1) of the Charter, the right to be heard in Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial in Article 47 of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that those requirements are not satisfied where the decision cannot be contested in an administrative procedure and where, in the administrative court proceedings, only documentary evidence is admissible and the court cannot hold a hearing?’

...

22) Third, by its fifth and seventh questions, the referring court wishes to know, in essence, whether Article 56 TFEU, read in conjunction with Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that decisions taken by a tax authority to fine a supplier of services established in another Member State, who has failed to comply with the obligation to submit a tax declaration under that legislation, are subject to judicial review in a written procedure where, contrary to the ordinary procedure of an administrative law action in tax matters, the national court with jurisdiction is not able to hold a hearing.