Case C-426/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.° 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 14 July 2017 — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano
Date: 2017-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, consumer protection, enforcement of ruling, lawyer, legal aid, legal expenses, remuneration of work, restriction on competition, right to justice, unfair terms of contract








C_2017300EN.01002601.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/26





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 14 July 2017 — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano
(Case C-426/17)
(2017/C 300/30)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Elena Barba Giménez

Defendant: Francisca Carrión Lozano

Questions referred







1.


Is Directive 93/13, in conjunction with Directive 2005/29 and with Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Article 35 of Law 1/2000 on Civil Procedure, under which the bodies conducting procedures to settle claims for fees (jura de cuentas) may not ascertain of their own motion, before issuing the enforceable instrument, whether the contract concluded between the lawyer and a consumer contains unfair terms or whether there have been unfair commercial practices?










2.


Is a legal aid lawyer a ‘trader’ or ‘seller or supplier’ for the purposes of Article 2(c) of Directive 93/13 (1) and Article 2(b) of Directive 2005/29? (2) Are Article 6(1)(d) and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC applicable to situations in which a professional’s fees are regulated by a legal provision?










3.


If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, does Directive 2005/29/EC preclude a rule such as that in Article 36 of Law 1/1996 on legal aid, that makes it obligatory for the statutory fee regime to be applied, even when the professional fails to give information or gives misleading information concerning the calculation of the price for his services?










4.


Must Article 101 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that laid down in Article 36 of Law 1/1996, which, if the application is upheld, makes the remuneration of lawyers who provide legal aid services subject to a scale of fees previously approved by those lawyers, from which the authorities of the Member State may not depart?










5.


Does that rule satisfy the requirements of necessity and proportionality to which Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC refers?










6.


Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that in Article 36 of Law 1/1996, which obliges the … [beneficiaries] of the right to legal aid, if their action succeeds and no order for costs is made, to pay the lawyer the fees determined in accordance with scales approved by a professional body amounting to more than 50 % of the annual amount of a social security benefit?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

(2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).