20

In those circumstances, the Consiglio di Stato decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘I. (1) Does the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, in so far it provides that a court of final instance is under an obligation to refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling a question of interpretation of Community law raised by a party to the proceedings, preclude national procedural rules which provide for a system of procedural bars, such as time-limits for bringing proceedings, the requirement that the grounds relied on be specific, a bar on amending the claim in the course of the proceedings and a bar on the court amending the claim as formulated by the applicant? (2) Does the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, in so far as it provides that a court of final instance is under an obligation to refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling a question of interpretation of Community law raised by a party to the proceedings, preclude any power on the part of the national court to ‘filter’ as regards the relevance of the question and its assessment of the degree of clarity of Community law? (3) If it is construed as imposing on the national court of final instance an unconditional obligation to refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling a question of interpretation of Community law raised by a party to the proceedings, is the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU consistent with the principle that proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time, which is also enshrined in Community law? (4) In what factual and legal circumstances does a failure on the part of the national court to comply with the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU constitute a “clear breach of Community law”, and can that concept differ in its scope and application with regard to special proceedings against the State, under Law No 117 of 13 April 1988 on compensation for damage caused in the exercise of judicial functions …? II. In the event that the Court should … accept the argument of the “large-mesh filter” … precluding the application of the national procedural rules concerning the specific nature of the grounds relied on in the application, the questions for a preliminary ruling must be submitted to the Court … in exactly the same terms in which they were formulated by the appellant [in the main proceedings], as set out [below]: “(1) … [the Court] is asked for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 101 TFEU … in relation to the statutory provisions and rules of conduct regulating the profession of geologist and the institutional responsibilities and rules of procedure of the [CNG], applicable to the present case, as set out below, in order to establish whether they are valid and compatible with European Union competition law (namely, Article 101 TFEU). … [reproduction of Article 9 of Law No 112/1963] [reproduction of Articles 14(1), and Article 17 of Law No 616 of 25 July 1966 containing the implementing provisions of Law No 112 of 3 February 1963 on the protection of the qualification and profession of geologist] [reproduction of Articles 6 and 7 of the Code of Conduct] [reproduction of Article 17 of the Code of Conduct]. On that point, in particular, the Court … is requested to give a ruling on whether it is contrary to Article 101 TFEU to designate Decree-Law No 223/2006, which includes a numerical-chronological system that is the only historically-based and lawful system at both national and Community level, as the applicable statutory provision binding in its entirety, which undoubtedly has no bearing on whether it is possible for those concerned to be aware of the legal rule or its binding force. [reproduction of Articles 18 and 19 of the Code of Conduct] Whereas: — [Regulation No 2137/85, designed] “to facilitate or develop the economic activities of its members”, states, in the sixth recital in the preamble, that the provisions [contained therein] “shall not, however, prejudice the application at national level of legal rules and/or ethical codes concerning the conditions for the pursuit of business and professional activities”; — [reproduction of recital 43 in the preamble to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22)]; — [reproduction of recital 115 in the preamble to Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36)]. Finally, the Court … is asked to rule on the compatibility with Article 101 TFEU of the distinction made, as a matter of law and in terms of the organisation of professional associations, between a professional undertaking and a commercial undertaking, as well as between professional competition and commercial competition. (2) (a) Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law prohibit and/or restrict any reference to professional integrity and dignity – of geologists in this case – as factors to be taken into account for the purpose of determining professional remuneration? (b) Under Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law, does the reference to factors pertaining to professional integrity and dignity give rise to effects which restrict professional competition? (c) Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law establish that the requirements of integrity and dignity as factors to be taken into account for the purpose of determining professional remuneration in connection with minimum fees, in respect of which derogations are expressly stated to be permitted – given the express and formal reference in Article 17 of the [Code of Conduct] to the statutory provision which permits that derogation (Decree-Law No 223/2006) – may be regarded as encouraging conduct that restricts competition? (d) Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law prohibit the reference to the scale of professional fees – established, in the case of geologists, by a State measure in the form of a ministerial decree of the Minister for Justice, after consultation with the Minister for the Production Sector, and which may be derogated from as regards minimum fees, it must be reiterated, as a result of the express and formal reference to Decree-Law No 223/2006 in Article 17 of the … Code of Conduct – as a purely technical and professional reference criterion for determining remuneration? (e) Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law prohibit any correlation between the scale of the services to be provided and the requirements of integrity and dignity, as also defined in Articles 6 and 7 of the [Code of Conduct] on the one hand, and professional remuneration on the other, as provided for by [the second paragraph of] Article 2233 of the Civil Code, according to which “in any event”, the amount of the [professional] remuneration must be commensurate with the scale of work performed and the dignity of the profession”? (f) For the purpose of Article 101 TFEU, therefore, can the reference to [the second paragraph of] Article 2233 of the Civil Code be regarded as legitimate and not likely to have a restrictive effect on competition? (g) Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law establish, in the context of the rules on competition, equality in law between a professional association, in this case of geologists, as regulated by specific State rules laid down for the pursuit of their objectives as an institution, and restrictive agreements, decisions or practices and concentrations of commercial undertakings constituting anti-competitive agreements? (h) Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law make it possible to establish equivalence between a contribution to a professional association that is mandatory in law – and is made for the pursuit of institutional functions and objectives – and the activity of selling goods or services and the financial profit accrued as a result of anti-competitive conduct on the part of concentrations of commercial undertakings? (i) Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law justify the imposition of a penalty in this case? (j) Does Article 101 TFEU or any other provision of European Union law justify making contributions to a professional association, which are mandatory in law, subject to a compulsory levy, equating those contributions to profit or revenue deriving from an anti-competitive economic and commercial agreement? III. (1) In the alternative, in the event that the Court should answer the questions concerning the interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU to the effect that the national rules of procedure are of no effect and the national court is under a duty to provide assistance, and that the question for a preliminary ruling, as raised by the appellant, is of too general a nature, the question for a preliminary ruling is whether Community law on competition and the professions, in particular the Community provisions relied upon by the appellant in its question, preclude the adoption of codes of professional conduct which make remuneration commensurate with professional integrity and dignity and the quality and scale of the work to be performed, with the result that remuneration which falls below the minimum fee threshold (and is therefore more competitive) may be penalised, at disciplinary level, as being in breach of the rules of professional conduct? (2) In the alternative, in the event that the Court should answer the questions concerning the interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU to the effect that the national rules of procedure are of no effect and the national court is under a duty to provide assistance, and that the question for a preliminary ruling, as raised by the appellant, is of too general a nature, the question for a preliminary ruling is whether Community competition law, in particular the rules prohibiting restrictive agreements, may be interpreted as meaning that a restrictive agreement may take the form of rules of professional conduct established by professional associations, where, by referring to professional integrity and dignity, as well as the quality and scale of the work to be performed, as criteria for determining professional remuneration, those rules have the effect of prohibiting derogations from minimum fees and, consequently, also of restricting competition because such derogation is prohibited? (3) In the alternative, in the event that the Court should answer the questions concerning the interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU to the effect that the national rules of procedure are of no effect and the national court is under a duty to provide assistance, and that the question for a preliminary ruling, as raised by the appellant, is of too general a nature, the question for a preliminary ruling is whether, if national law lays down rules to safeguard competition which are more stringent than the Community rules, in particular by establishing the possibility of derogating from the minimum fees set by the scale of professional fees, whereas Community law appears still to permit the prohibition on derogating from minimum fees in certain circumstances, and, consequently, if action taken by a professional association prohibiting derogation from minimum fees constitutes an agreement that is restrictive of competition under national law, but may not be regarded as such under Community law, does Community competition law, in particular the Community rules on agreements which restrict competition, preclude such an outcome whereby a particular form of conduct may incur penalties as a restrictive agreement under national law but not under Community law, whenever national rules for safeguarding competition are more stringent than Community rules?’