CELEX: 62012CA0136
Language: en
Date: 2013-07-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-136/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consiglio nazionale dei geologi v Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato and Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato v Consiglio nazionale dei geologi (Third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU — Scope of the obligation on courts of final instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 101 TFEU — Code of conduct of a professional association prohibiting the application of fee scales which are not commensurate with the dignity of the profession)

7.9.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 260/13
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Consiglio nazionale dei geologi v Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato and Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato v Consiglio nazionale dei geologi
   (Case C-136/12) (1)
   
   (Third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU - Scope of the obligation on courts of final instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 101 TFEU - Code of conduct of a professional association prohibiting the application of fee scales which are not commensurate with the dignity of the profession)
   2013/C 260/22
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Referring court
   
   Consiglio di Stato
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Consiglio nazionale dei geologi, Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato
   
      Defendants: Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato, Consiglio nazionale dei geologi
   
      Re:
   
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 267, third paragraph, TFEU — Scope of the obligation on courts of final instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling — Concept of ‘serious manifest breach of European Union law’ — Procedural rules and principles of a Member State which prohibit a national court from, first, referring questions to the Court as formulated by one of the parties to the proceedings which are manifestly inadmissible and, second, reformulating such questions of its own motion — Interpretation of Article 101 TFEU, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) (OJ 1985 L 199, p. 1), of 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) and 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) — Code of conduct of a professional association prohibiting the application of fee scales which are not commensurate with the dignity of the profession (‘decoro e dignità professionale’) or with the quantity and quality of the services provided — Applicability of national competition rules that are more stringent than European Union rules
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the referring court alone to determine and formulate the questions to be referred for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of European Union law which it considers relevant for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings. National rules which have the effect of undermining that jurisdiction must be disapplied.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Rules such as those laid down by the Code of Conduct concerning the exercise of the profession of geologist in Italy, approved by the Consiglio nazionale dei geologi on 19 December 2006 and amended most recently on 24 March 2010, which establish as criteria for determining the remuneration of geologists, in addition to the quality and scale of the work to be performed, the dignity of the profession, constitute a decision by an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU which may have the effect of restricting competition within the internal market. It is for the referring court to assess, in the light of the overall context in which the Code of Conduct produces its effects, including the national legal framework in its entirety and the manner in which that code is applied in practice by the National Association of Geologists, whether that effect is produced in the present case. That court must also verify whether, in the light of all the relevant material before it, the rules of that code, in particular in so far as they apply the criterion based on the dignity of the profession, may be regarded as necessary for the implementation of the legitimate objective of providing guarantees to consumers of geologists’ services.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.