Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2006:758
Date: 2006-12-05
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Freedom to provide services
Concepts: Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice;Obligations of the Member States;The various services;General;Binding nature of the competition rules and measures taken by Member States, direct effect
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 234 EC) 2. Competition – Community rules – Obligations of the Member States (Arts 10 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC) 3. Freedom to provide services – Treaty provisions – Field of application (Art. 49 EC) 4. Freedom to provide services – Restrictions (Art. 49 EC) 1. Where, in a reference for a preliminary ruling, all aspects of the main proceedings before the national court are confined within a single Member State, a reply might none the less be useful to the national court, in particular if its national law were to require that a national of that Member State must be allowed to enjoy the same rights as those which a national of another Member State would derive from Community law in the same situation. (see para. 30) 2. Although it is true that Articles 81 EC and 82 EC are, in themselves, concerned solely with the conduct of undertakings and not with laws or regulations emanating from Member States, those articles, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC, which lays down a duty to cooperate, none the less require Member States not to introduce or maintain in force measures, even of a legislative or regulatory nature, which may render ineffective the competition rules applicable to undertakings. Articles 10 EC and 81 EC are infringed where a Member State requires or encourages the adoption of agreements, decisions or concerted practices contrary to Article 81 EC or reinforces their effects, or where it divests its own rules of the character of legislation by delegating to private economic operators responsibility for taking decisions affecting the economic sphere. In that connection, the view cannot be taken that a Member State has delegated to private economic operators responsibility for taking decisions affecting the economic sphere, which would have the effect of depriving the provisions of the character of legislation where, first, the trade organisation concerned is responsible only for producing a draft scale which, as such, is not binding since the Minister has the power to have the draft amended by that organisation and, secondly, the national legislation provides that fees are to be settled by the courts on the basis of the criteria referred to by that same legislation and, moreover, in certain exceptional circumstances and by duly reasoned decision, the court may depart from the maximum and minimum limits fixed. In those circumstances, the Member State is not open to the criticism that it requires or encourages the adoption of agreements, decisions or concerted practices contrary to Article 81 EC of the Treaty or reinforces their effects, or requires or encourages abuses of a dominant position contrary to Article 82 EC or reinforces the effects of such abuses. It follows that 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 members of the Bar, 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. (see paras 46-47, 50-54, operative part 1) 3. Article 49 EC requires not only the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of nationality against providers of services who are established in another Member State but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States, which is liable to prohibit or further impede the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services. Furthermore, Article 49 EC precludes the application of any national rules which have the effect of making the provision of services between Member States more difficult than the provision of services purely within one Member State. (see paras 56-57) 4. A Member State’s prohibition of derogation, by agreement, from the minimum fees set by a scale of lawyers’ fees for services which are (a) court services and (b) reserved to lawyers is liable to render access to the legal services market in that Member State more difficult for lawyers established in another Member State and therefore is likely to restrict the exercise of their activities providing services in that Member State. That prohibition therefore amounts to a restriction within the meaning of Article 49 EC. That prohibition deprives lawyers established in another Member State of the possibility, by requesting fees lower than those set by the scale, of competing more effectively with lawyers established on a stable basis in the Member State concerned and who therefore have greater opportunities for winning clients than lawyers established abroad. Likewise, the prohibition thus laid down limits the choice of service recipients in that Member State, because they cannot resort to the services of lawyers established in other Member States who would offer their services in that Member State at a lower rate than the minimum fees set by the scale. However, such a prohibition may be justified where it serves overriding requirements relating to the public interest, is suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which it pursues and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. In that respect, first, the protection of consumers, in particular recipients of the legal services provided by persons concerned in the administration of justice and, secondly, the safeguarding of the proper administration of justice, are objectives to be included among those which may be regarded as overriding requirements relating to the public interest capable of justifying a restriction on freedom to provide services, on condition, first, that the national measure at issue in the main proceedings is suitable for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and, secondly, it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective. It is a matter for the national court to decide whether the restriction on freedom to provide services introduced by that national legislation fulfils those conditions. For that purpose, it is for that court to take account of the factors set out in the following paragraphs. Thus, it must be determined, in particular, whether there is a correlation between the level of fees and the quality of the services provided by lawyers and whether, in particular, the setting of such minimum fees constitutes an appropriate measure for attaining the objectives pursued, namely the protection of consumers and the proper administration of justice. Although it is true that a scale imposing minimum fees cannot prevent members of the profession from offering services of mediocre quality, it is conceivable that such a scale does serve to prevent lawyers, in the context of a market which is characterised by an extremely large number of lawyers who are enrolled and practising, from being encouraged to compete against each other by possibly offering services at a discount, with the risk of deterioration in the quality of the services provided. Account must also be taken of the specific features both of the market in question and the services in question and, in particular, of the fact that, in the field of lawyers’ services, there is usually an asymmetry of information between ‘client-consumers’ and lawyers. Lawyers display a high level of technical knowledge which consumers may not have and the latter therefore find it difficult to judge the quality of the services provided to them. However, the national court will have to determine whether professional rules in respect of lawyers, in particular rules relating to organisation, qualifications, professional ethics, supervision and liability, suffice in themselves to attain the objectives of the protection of consumers and the proper administration of justice. It follows that legislation containing an absolute prohibition of derogation, by agreement, from the minimum fees set by a scale of lawyers’ fees, 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. (see paras 58-61, 64-70, operative part 2)