1.

Must Article 26 TFEU, in conjunction with Articles 49 and 114 thereof, Article 57 of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, in conjunction with Article 58 thereof, and Article 3 of Directive 2014/23/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, in conjunction with Articles 38 and 41 thereof, be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the present case, which links the imposition of a fine pursuant to Paragraph 13 of [Zákon č. 315/2016 Z. z. o registri partnerov verejného sektora a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov (Law No 315/2016 on the Register of Public Sector Partners and amending and supplementing certain laws, as amended; ‘Law No 315/2016’)] and the non-payment thereof with exclusion from the conclusion of contracts and concession contracts with the public sector (whether on the basis of a public procurement procedure or outside that procedure), solely as a result of (and therefore by reason of) removal from the Register partnerov verejného sektora (Register of Public Sector Partners; ‘the RPSP’)?

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 26 TFEU, in conjunction with Articles 49 and 114 thereof, Article 57 of Directive 2014/24/EU, in conjunction with Article 58 thereof, and Article 3 of Directive 2014/23/EU, in conjunction with Articles 38 and 41 thereof, be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a fine pursuant to Paragraph 13(1)(a) of Law No 315/2016, the non-payment of which may lead to removal from the RPSP?

3.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and the principle of proportionality of penalties which arises therefrom, be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the present case, which automatically, without any possibility of taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence, the individual circumstances of its commission and the reasons for the non-payment of the fine imposed on the public sector partner, ties non-payment of the fine to removal of that partner from the RPSP and a bar on its entry in RPSP for a period of two years from the date of removal?

4.

Must Article 49 of the Charter and the principle of the proportionality of penalties be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the present case, under which the authority imposing a fine on a public sector partner automatically imposes a fine in the amount of the economic benefit, without any possibility of that authority distinguishing which offence is the reason for the imposition of the fine and without any possibility of taking into consideration other negative legal consequences (penalties) which may arise for the person penalised after the imposition of the fine?

5.

Must Article 49 of the Charter and the principles of the legality and proportionality of penalties and of legal certainty be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the present case, under which a fine is imposed in the amount of the economic benefit but the legislation itself does not expressly set out the basic parameters for the determination thereof, in terms of the basis for calculating the economic benefit and the period during which the economic benefit was derived?

6.

Must Article 49 of the Charter and the principle of legality of penalties and the principle of legal certainty be interpreted as precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the present case, under which the legal basis for imposing the fine is non-compliance with the requirement relating to the impartiality of the authorised person, without setting out in greater detail the criteria according to which that impartiality is to be assessed?