This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007CB0386
Case C-386/07: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs, Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA (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 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs, Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA (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 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs, Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA (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)
SL C 209, 15.8.2008, p. 17–17
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
15.8.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 209/17 |
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs, Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA
(Case C-386/07) (1)
(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)
(2008/C 209/23)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Consiglio di Stato
Parties
Applicants: Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA
Defendants: Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA
Intervener: Azienda Sanitaria locale ULSS No 15 (Alta Padovana, Regione Veneto, Italy)
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 of the order
|
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 members of the Bar such as the Consiglia nazionale forense, and which also prohibits the judge, when he 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 clearly inadmissible. |