CELEX: C2007/283/14
Language: en
Date: 2007-11-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-386/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2007 — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA

24.11.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 283/8
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2007 — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA
   (Case C-386/07)
   (2007/C 283/14)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicants: Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA
   
      Defendants: Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               ‘Does the mandatory nature of the minimum fees and charges set in respect of services provided by lawyers constitute a measure which favours members of the profession concerned, contrary to Articles 81 EC and 10 EC (formerly Articles 85 and 5 of the EC Treaty)?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Does the prohibition of the reduction by courts, when determining costs, of the minimum limits set in the individual items of the scale, by reason of the mandatory nature of the minimum fees and charges set in respect of services provided by lawyers, constitute a measure which favours members of the profession concerned, contrary to the rules in Articles 81 EC and 10 EC?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Does the obligation to state reasons, which is in any event imposed, for the reduction of fees below the minimum limit, and which conflicts with the practice of the administrative courts of calculating the costs of a case on the basis of a variety of factors relating to the outcome of the proceedings and not on that of the actual economic value of the dispute, constitute a restriction on the practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained, as guaranteed by recital (7) in the preamble to Directive 98/5/EC (1)?’
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 77 of 14.3.1998, p. 36.