21.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/11

1.

Is the fact that there is a legal provision laid down by the State that requires State control in the fixing of the fees of procuradores, by means of rules setting the exact and mandatory amount of those fees, and conferring authority on the courts, in particular in the event of an order for costs, in each particular case to fix those costs subsequently, although that authority is limited to ensuring the strict application of the tariff without the possibility of departing, in exceptional cases and by way of a reasoned decision, from the limits set in the legal provision on tariffs consistent with Articles 4(3) [TEU] and 101 TFEU?

2.

Does the definition of the concepts ‘overriding reasons relating to the public interest’, ‘proportionality’ and ‘necessity’ in Articles [4] and [15] of the Directive on services in the internal market (1) as applied by the EU courts, allow the courts of the Member States, in circumstances where there is State regulation in relation to the fixing of fees and there is an implied declaration, in the absence of any rules in the implementing legislation, that there is an overriding reason relating to the public interest, although its inconsistency with EU case-law does not allow it to be upheld, to hold in a particular case that there is a limitation which is not in the public interest and, therefore, to disregard or to amend the legal provision imposing rules on the remuneration of procuradores?

3.

Is the application of a legal provision of that nature contrary to the right to a fair trial as defined by the EU courts?