Judgment of the Court 19 February 2002 in Case C-35/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretore di Pinerolo): Manuele Arduino (Compulsory tariff for fees of members of the Bar — Decision of the National Council of the Bar — Approval by the Minister for Justice — Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC)
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fixing of prices, interpretation of the law, lawyer

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

21 February 2002

in Case C-416/98: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Nea Energeiaki Technologia EPE (1)

(Article 181 of the EC Treaty (now Article 238 EC) —
Arbitration clause — Reimbursement of advance payments
made under a contract terminated by the Commission for
non-performance)

(2002/C 109/01)

(Language of the case: Greek)

1. Orders Nea Energeiaki Technologia EPE to pay to the
Commission of the European Communities, first, the sum of
GRD 9 498 551 resulting from the agreement concluded
between Nea Energeiaki Technologia EPE and the Commission
sum of
on 27 March 1990, namely
GRD 9 257 051 plus GRD 241 500 in respect of bank
interest, and, second, interest on the principal amount due,
calculated on the basis of the European Investment Bank rate
applicable on 15 July 1985 for the period from 27 March
1990 to 10 December 1998 and on the basis of the statutory
rate under Greek law for the period from 11 December 1998,
the date of service of
the application on Nea Energeiaki
Technologia EPE, until total discharge by the latter of its debt;

the principal

2. Orders Nea Energeiaki Technologia EPE to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

19 February 2002

In Case C-416/98, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: R.B. Wainwright and O. Couvert-Castéra, assisted by
M. Bra, avocat, and K. Kapoutzidou, dikigoros) v Nea Energeiaki
Technologia EPE, established in Athens (Greece)
(Agent:
G. Papacharalampous, dikigoros): Application by the Com-
mission under Article 181 of the EC Treaty (now Article 238
EC) for repayment of an advance granted by it to the defendant
in relation to a contract concerning the implementation, and
practical demonstration, of a pilot programme for wind-
generated energy entitled ‘Kea Island’, which provided for the
setting-up of a wind energy converter on a Greek island, the
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President
of the Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
21 February 2002, in which it:

in Case C-35/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pretore di Pinerolo): Manuele Arduino (1)

(Compulsory tariff for fees of members of the Bar —
Decision of the National Council of the Bar — Approval by
the Minister for Justice — Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty
(now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC)

(2002/C 109/02)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-35/99: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Pretore di Pinerolo

C 109/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
before that court against Manuele Arduino, third parties: Diego
Dessi, Giovanni Bertolotto, and Compagnia Assicuratrice RAS
SpA, on the interpretation of Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 81 EC), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez
Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von
Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward,
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
A. La Pergola,
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 2002, in
which it has ruled:

Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC)
do not preclude a Member State from adopting a law or regulation
which approves, on the basis of a draft produced by a professional
body of members of the Bar, a tariff fixing minimum and maximum
fees for members of the profession, where that State measure forms
part of a procedure such as that laid down in Royal Decree-Law
No 1578 of 27 November 1933, as amended.

(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

7 March 2002

U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri): Application for a declaration
that:

— by maintaining, contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 49 EC), the general
prohibition whereby lawyers established in other Member
States and practising in Italy in the exercise of their
freedom to provide services cannot have in that State the
infrastructure needed to provide their services,

— by making enrolment at the Italian Bar conditional upon
the possession of Italian nationality, the possession of
qualifications acquired only in Italy and maintenance of a
residence in an Italian judicial district, contrary to
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 43 EC),

— by applying in a discriminatory manner against lawyers
from other Member States the ‘compensatory measures’
(aptitude test) provided for in Article 4 of Council
Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas
awarded on completion of professional education and
training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19,
p. 16), and

— by incompletely transposing Directive 89/48, inasmuch
as no rules have been laid down regulating the conduct
of the aptitude test for lawyers from other Member States,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty and Directive
89/48,

in Case C-145/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

the Court (Fifth Chamber), C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it:

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) — Directive 89/48/EEC —
Access to and practice of the profession of lawyer)

1. Declares that:

(2002/C 109/03)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-145/99, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and B. Mongin) v Italian Republic (Agent:

— by maintaining, contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty
the general
(now, after amendment, Article 49 EC),
prohibition whereby lawyers established in other Member
States and practising in Italy in the exercise of their
freedom to provide services cannot have in that State the
infrastructure needed to provide their services,

— by requiring members of the Bar to reside in the judicial
district of the court to which the Bar at which they are
enrolled is attached, contrary to Article 52 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), and