CELEX: 62014CN0338
Language: en
Date: 2014-07-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-338/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 14 July 2014  — Quenon K. SPRL v Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA

29.9.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 339/8
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 14 July 2014 — Quenon K. SPRL v Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA
   (Case C-338/14)
   2014/C 339/08
   Language of the case: French
   
      Referring court
   
   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Quenon K. SPRL
   
      Defendants: Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1)
            
            
               Must Article 17 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 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is authorised to provide that after the termination of the contract, the commercial agent has the right to an indemnity for customers of which the amount must not be greater than the amount of remuneration for one year, and that, if that amount does not cover the whole of the loss actually suffered, damages in the sum of the difference between the amount of loss actually suffered and the amount of that indemnity?
            
         
               2)
            
            
               More specifically, must Article 17(2)(c) of [Directive 86/653] be interpreted as making the award of damages additional to the indemnity for customers conditional upon the existence of a breach of contract or breach of a quasi-delictual duty of care by the principal which was the cause of the losses claimed, and to the existence of loss which is distinct from that compensated for by the lump sum of the indemnity for customers?
            
         
               3)
            
            
               If the answer to the latter question is yes, must the breach be something other than the unilateral termination of the contract, such as, for example, giving insufficient notice, the grant of insufficient compensation in respect of notice and customers, the existence of serious reasons on the part of the principal, a breach of the right to terminate the contract or any other types of breaches of, in particular, market practice?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.