# C_2006331EN.01000201.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 December 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Torino and the Tribunale di Roma — Italy) — Federico Cipolla v Rosaria Fazari, née Portolese, C-94/04) and Stefano Macrino, Claudia Capodarte v Roberto Meloni (C-202/04)

(Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04) (1)

1

(Community competition rules - National rules concerning lawyers' fees - Setting of professional scales of charges - Freedom to provide services)

(2006/C 331/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d'appello di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Federico Cipolla (C-94/04) and Stefano Macrino, Claudia Capodarte (C-202/04)

Applicants:

Defendants: Rosaria Fazari, née Portolese (C-94/04), Roberto Meloni (C-202/04)

Defendants:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte d'appello di Torino — Applicability of Community competition rules to lawyers' services — National rules laying down scales of fees to which no exceptions can be made and under which any agreement between client and lawyer concerning professional fees is void

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Roma — Comparability with Articles 10 EC and 81 EC of national rules approving a tariff of fees encompassing services provided by lawyers in the area of legal representation and legal consultation which may also be provided by non-lawyers — Tariff proposed by the professional body of lawyers

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 10 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC do not preclude a Member State from adopting a legislative measure which approves, on the basis of a draft produced by a professional body of lawyers such as the Consiglio nazionale forense (National Lawyers' Council), a scale fixing a minimum fee for members of the legal profession from which there can generally be no derogation in respect of either services reserved to those members or those, such as out-of-court services, which may also be provided by any other economic operator not subject to that scale. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 10 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC do not preclude a Member State from adopting a legislative measure which approves, on the basis of a draft produced by a professional body of lawyers such as the Consiglio nazionale forense (National Lawyers' Council), a scale fixing a minimum fee for members of the legal profession from which there can generally be no derogation in respect of either services reserved to those members or those, such as out-of-court services, which may also be provided by any other economic operator not subject to that scale.

| 2. | Legislation containing an absolute prohibition of derogation, by agreement, from the minimum fees set by a scale of lawyers' fees, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for services which are (a) court services and (b) reserved to lawyers constitutes a restriction on freedom to provide services laid down in Article 49 EC. It is for the national court to determine whether such legislation, in the light of the detailed rules for its application, actually serves the objectives of protection of consumers and the proper administration of justice which might justify it and whether the restrictions it imposes do not appear disproportionate having regard to those objectives. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Legislation containing an absolute prohibition of derogation, by agreement, from the minimum fees set by a scale of lawyers' fees, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for services which are (a) court services and (b) reserved to lawyers constitutes a restriction on freedom to provide services laid down in Article 49 EC. It is for the national court to determine whether such legislation, in the light of the detailed rules for its application, actually serves the objectives of protection of consumers and the proper administration of justice which might justify it and whether the restrictions it imposes do not appear disproportionate having regard to those objectives.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.

1

OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.

---