Case C-48/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda — Slovakia) — ERGO Poist’ovňa a.s. v Alžbeta Barlíková (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Commercial agent’s commission — Article 11 — Partial non-execution of the contract between the third party and the principal — Consequences for the right to commission — Concept of ‘reason for which the principal is to blame’)
Date: 2017-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: commission agent, freedom to provide services, insurance occupation, remuneration of work, right of establishment, sales representative, termination of a contract








C_2017239EN.01001101.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/11





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda — Slovakia) — ERGO Poist’ovňa a.s. v Alžbeta Barlíková
(Case C-48/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Commercial agent’s commission - Article 11 - Partial non-execution of the contract between the third party and the principal - Consequences for the right to commission - Concept of ‘reason for which the principal is to blame’))
(2017/C 239/14)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Dunajská Streda

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ERGO Poist’ovňa a.s.

Defendant: Alžbeta Barlíková

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The first indent of Article 11(1) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that it covers not only cases of complete non-execution of the contract concluded between the principal and the third party, but also cases of partial non-execution of that contract, such as non-compliance with the volume of transactions or the duration envisaged by that contract.










2.


Article 11(2) and (3) of Directive 86/653 must be interpreted as meaning that the clause of a contract for commercial agency pursuant to which the agent is required to refund, on a pro-rata basis, a part of his commission in the event of partial non-execution of the contract concluded between the principal and the third party does not constitute a ‘derogation to the detriment of the commercial agent’, for the purposes of that Article 11(3), if the part of the commission subject to the refund obligation is proportionate to the extent to which that contract has not been executed and on condition that that non-execution is not due to a reason for which the principal is to blame.










3.


The second indent of Article 11(1) of Directive 86/653 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘a reason for which the principal is to blame’ does not relate only to the legal reasons which led directly to the termination of the contract concluded between the principal and the third party, but covers all the legal and factual circumstances for which the principal is to blame, which are the cause of the non-execution of that contract.






(1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.