CELEX: 62016CN0048
Language: en
Date: 2016-01-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-48/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda (Slovak Republic) lodged on 27 January 2016 — ERGO Poisťovňa, a.s. v Alžbeta Barlíková

18.4.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 136/14
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Dunajská Streda (Slovak Republic) lodged on 27 January 2016 — ERGO Poisťovňa, a.s. v Alžbeta Barlíková
   (Case C-48/16)
   (2016/C 136/19)
   Language of the case: Slovak
   
      Referring court
   
   Okresný súd Dunajská Streda
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: ERGO Poisťovňa, a.s.
   
      Defendant: Alžbeta Barlíková
   
      Questions referred
   
   
            
               1.
            
            
               Must the expression ‘the contract between the third party and the principal will not be executed’ in Article 11 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 (1) on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (‘Directive 86/653’) be interpreted as meaning:
               
                           (a)
                        
                        
                           complete non-execution of the contract, that is, neither the principal nor the third party even partly performs what is provided for in the contract, or
                        
                     
                           (b)
                        
                        
                           even partial non-execution of the contract, that is, the volume of transactions envisaged is not achieved, for example, or the contract will not last for the time envisaged?
                        
                     
         
            
               2.
            
            
               If the interpretation in indent (b) of Question 1 is correct, must Article 11(2) of Directive 86/653 be interpreted as meaning that a provision in a contract for commercial agency under which the agent is obliged to return a proportionate part of his commission if the contract between the principal and the third party is not executed to the extent envisaged, or to the extent defined by the contract for commercial agency, is not a derogation to the detriment of the agent?
            
         
            
               3.
            
            
               In the cases concerned in the main proceedings, when assessing whether ‘the principal is to blame’ within the meaning of the second indent of Article 11(1) of Directive 86/653,
               
                           (a)
                        
                        
                           may only legal reasons leading directly to termination of the contract be considered (for example, the contract ceases as a result of the non-performance of an obligation under it by the third party), or
                        
                     
                           (b)
                        
                        
                           may it also be considered whether those legal reasons were not the result of the conduct of the principal in the legal relationship with that third party which induced the third party to lose confidence in the principal and consequently to breach an obligation under the contract with the principal?
                        
                     
         
      (1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.