This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CA0338
Case C-338/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Quenon K. SPRL v Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA, formerly Citilife SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Article 17(2) — Termination of the agency contract by the principal — Compensation of the agent — Prohibition of the simultaneous operation of the indemnity for customers scheme and compensation for damage scheme — Entitlement of the agent to damages additional to the indemnity for customers — Conditions)
Case C-338/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Quenon K. SPRL v Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA, formerly Citilife SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Article 17(2) — Termination of the agency contract by the principal — Compensation of the agent — Prohibition of the simultaneous operation of the indemnity for customers scheme and compensation for damage scheme — Entitlement of the agent to damages additional to the indemnity for customers — Conditions)
Case C-338/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Quenon K. SPRL v Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA, formerly Citilife SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Article 17(2) — Termination of the agency contract by the principal — Compensation of the agent — Prohibition of the simultaneous operation of the indemnity for customers scheme and compensation for damage scheme — Entitlement of the agent to damages additional to the indemnity for customers — Conditions)
OJ C 38, 1.2.2016, p. 7–8
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
1.2.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 38/7 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Quenon K. SPRL v Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA, formerly Citilife SA
(Case C-338/14) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Article 17(2) - Termination of the agency contract by the principal - Compensation of the agent - Prohibition of the simultaneous operation of the indemnity for customers scheme and compensation for damage scheme - Entitlement of the agent to damages additional to the indemnity for customers - Conditions))
(2016/C 038/09)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Cour d’appel de Bruxelles
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Quenon K. SPRL
Respondents: Beobank SA, formerly Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA, formerly Citilife SA
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 17(2) 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 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation providing that a commercial agent is entitled, on termination of the agency contract, both to an indemnity for customers limited to a maximum of one year’s remuneration and, if that indemnity does not cover all of the loss actually incurred, to the award of additional damages, provided that such legislation does not result in the agent being compensated twice for the loss of commission following termination of the contract. |
|
2. |
Article 17(2)(c) of Directive 86/653/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not make the award of damages conditional on demonstration of the existence of a fault attributable to the principal which caused the alleged harm, but does require the alleged harm to be distinct from that compensated for by the indemnity for customers. |