ECLI:EU:C:2008:256•Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2008.#Hospital Consulting Srl and Others v Esaote SpA and Others.#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Consiglio di Stato - Italy.#Rules of procedure - Articles 92(1) and 104(3) - Community competition rules - National rules concerning lawyers’ fees - Setting of professional scales of charges - Partial inadmissibility - Answers to questions which may be deduced from the case-law of the Court.#Case C-386/07.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2008.#Hospital Consulting Srl and Others v Esaote SpA and Others.#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Consiglio di Stato - Italy.#Rules of procedure - Articles 92(1) and 104(3) - Community competition rules - National rules concerning lawyers’ fees - Setting of professional scales of charges - Partial inadmissibility - Answers to questions which may be deduced from the case-law of the Court.#Case C-386/07.
ECLI:EU:C:2008:256Eu Chamb 07 CMay 5, 2008
Full text
Subject of the case
Operative part
Subject of the case
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Consiglio di Stato – Interpretation of Articles 10 and 81(1) EC and Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) – Fixing by a national professional organisation of mandatory tariffs for lawyers’ services subject to ministerial approval – National rules prohibiting judges in decisions on costs from derogating from the set minimum fees.
Operative part
Operative part
1. Articles 10 EC and 81 EC do not preclude a national law which in principle prohibits derogation from minimum fees approved by ministerial decree, on the basis of a draft drawn up by a professional body of lawyers such as the Consiglia nazionale forense, and which also prohibits the court, when it decides the amount of costs that the unsuccessful party must pay to the other party, from derogating from those minimum fees.
2. The third question referred by the Consiglio di Stato by decision of 13 January 2006 is manifestly inadmissible.
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.