Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2016:932
Date: 2016-12-08
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Competition;Right of establishment;Internal market - Principles;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Spain

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 8 December 2016 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer — Absence (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identification of the relevant aspects of EU law — Reformulation of the questions (Art. 267 TFEU) 3. Competition — EU rules — Obligations of the Member States — Legislation intended to reinforce the effects of pre-existing agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Concept (Art. 4(3), TEU; Art. 101 TFEU) 4. Competition — EU rules — Obligations of the Member States — National legislation making the fees of lawyers subject to a tariff which may be increased or decreased only by 12%, in respect of which the national courts merely check its strict application without being in a position, in exceptional circumstances, to derogate from the limits set by that tariff — Lawfulness (Art. 4(3) TEU; Art. 101 TFEU) 5. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Question raised concerning a dispute confined within a single Member State — Included — Conditions (Art. 56 TFEU, 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) 6. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation generally governing certain fees in the field of administration of justice — National legislation not intended to implement provisions of EU law — Legal situation falling outside the scope of EU law — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 51(1)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 26-28) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 30) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 34-36) 4. Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the fees of lawyers subject to a tariff which may be increased or decreased only by 12%, in respect of which the national courts merely check its strict application without being in a position, in exceptional circumstances, to derogate from the limits set by that tariff. A Member State cannot be criticised, merely because the national courts are bound, when taxing the costs of lawyers, to comply with the provisions of national legislation, drafted and promulgated by that Member State in accordance with the ordinary regulatory procedure, for having delegated the power to draft that legislation or its implementation to the professional associations of lawyers. Nor can that Member State be criticised for either requiring or encouraging the conclusion, by the professional associations of lawyers, of agreements contrary to Article 101 TFEU or for increasing the effects of such abuses or for requiring or encouraging abuses of a dominant position contrary to Article 102 TFEU. (see paras 40-42, operative part 1) 5. The Court of Justice may decline to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where, inter alia, it is quite obvious that the provision of EU law referred to the Court for interpretation is incapable of applying. In that regard, in so far as the requests for a preliminary ruling concern the compatibility of the requirements in question with the provisions of the FEU Treaty on freedom to provide services, it should be observed that they are not applicable in a situation all the elements of which are confined within a single Member State. The specific factors that allow a link to be established between the articles of the FEU Treaty on freedom to provide services and the subject or circumstances of a dispute, confined in all respects within a single Member State, must be apparent from the order for reference. Consequently, in a situation which is confined in all respects within a single Member State, it is for the referring court to indicate to the Court, in accordance with the requirements of Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, in what way the dispute pending before it, despite its purely domestic character, has a connecting factor with the provisions of EU law on the fundamental freedoms that makes the preliminary ruling on interpretation necessary for it to give judgment in that dispute. (paras 44-47) 6. See the text of the decision. (see paras 52, 54, 55)