The
Court of Justice has ruled on two references from the Bulgarian court seeking a
preliminary ruling on the application of Article 101 TFEU to the setting of a
minimum level of legal fees by the Bulgarian Supreme Council of the legal
Profession.
The
court asked whether Article 101(1) TFEU precludes a national provision whereby
a professional association has discretion to set down in advance minimum legal
fees.
The
Court found that Article 101 TFEU (when read with article 4(3) TEU) must be
interpreted as meaning that national legislation which does not allow a lawyer
and his client to agree fees in an amount less than the minimum amount laid
down in regulation, without that lawyer being subject to a disciplinary
procedure, and which does not authorise the courts to order reimbursement of
fees in an amount below that minimum amount, is capable of restricting competition
in the internal market within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.
The
Court said that it was for the national court to confirm whether the
legislation actually met with legitimate objectives and whether the
restrictions were limited to what was necessary to achieve those objectives.
The
case illustrates the interaction between rules imposed under professional
services regulation and competition law in what is becoming an interesting battle
ground. There are already indications of
the readiness of the CAT to consider standalone competition claims and, in
particular, in relation to the decisions of an approved regulator. For example, the CAT has recently found that
the requirement under the terms of the Conveyancing Quality Scheme that members
of the scheme must obtain certain training courses exclusively from the Law
Society breaches the Chapter I and Chapter II prohibition (Case 1249/5/7/16 Socrates Training Limited v The Law Society
of England and Wales [2017] CAT 10).
Joined
cases C‑427/16 and
C‑428/16 - CHEZ Elektro Bulgaria v Yordan Kotsev and
FrontEx International v Emil Yanakiev (not yet available in English)
No comments:
Post a Comment