Case C‑136/12
Consiglio nazionale dei geologi
v
Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato
and
Autorità garante della concorrenza e del mercato
v
Consiglio nazionale dei geologi
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato)
(Third paragraph of Article267 TFEU— Scope of the obligation on courts of final instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling— Article101 TFEU— Code of conduct of a professional association prohibiting the application of fee scales which are not commensurate with the dignity of the profession)
Summary— Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 18July 2013
1.Questions referred for a preliminary ruling— Reference to the Court— Questions of interpretation— Obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling — Limits— Relevance of questions— Concept — Assessment by the national court of final instance
(Art. 267, third para., TFEU)
2.Questions referred for a preliminary ruling— Reference to the Court— Jurisdiction of the national courts— Determination and formulation of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
(Art. 267, third para., TFEU)
3.Questions referred for a preliminary ruling— Jurisdiction of the Court— Limits— Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer— Questions not related to the purpose of the main proceedings — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court
(Art. 267 TFEU)
4.Questions referred for a preliminary ruling— Admissibility— Explanation of the reasons for which an answer to the request for a preliminary ruling is necessary—None — Inadmissibility
(Art. 267 TFEU)
5.Agreements, decisions and concerted practices— Decisions of associations of undertakings— Concept— Rules laid down by a code of conduct concerning the exercise of the profession of geologist— Binding nature— Possibility of imposing penalties in the event of failure to comply— Included
(Art. 101(1) TFEU)
6.Agreements, decisions and concerted practices— Decisions of associations of undertakings— Concept— Rules laid down by a code of conduct concerning the exercise of the profession of geologist which establish as criteria for determining the remuneration of geologists, in addition to the quality and scale of the work to be performed, the dignity of the profession— Included
(Art. 101(1) TFEU)
1.See the text of the decision.
(see paras 25-27)
2.The third paragraph of Article267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the referring court alone to determine and formulate the questions to be referred for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of EU law which it considers relevant for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings. National rules which have the effect of undermining that jurisdiction must be disapplied.
(see paras 31, 36, operative part 1)
3.See the text of the decision.
(see para. 35)
4.See the text of the decision.
(see paras 39, 40)
5.In the area of competition, as regards the concept of a decision of an associations of undertakings, which is relevant under Article101 TFEU, even a price recommendation, whatever its exact legal status, may be regarded as constituting such a decision. In the present case, the fact that the code of conduct of a professional association, such as the professional association of geologists, is binding and that it is possible to impose penalties on geologists in the event of non-compliance with that code must lead to the conclusion that the rules laid down therein constitute a decision under Article101 TFEU.
(see paras 46, 47)
6.Rules such as those laid down by a code of conduct which establish as criteria for determining the remuneration of geologists, in addition to the quality and scale of the work to be performed, the dignity of the profession, constitute a decision by an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article101(1) TFEU which may have the effect of restricting competition within the internal market. It is for the national court to assess, in the light of the overall context in which such a code produces its effects, including the national legal framework in its entirety and the manner in which that code is applied in practice by the National Association of Geologists, whether that effect is produced in the present case. That court must also verify whether, in the light of all the relevant material before it, the rules of that code, in particular in so far as they apply the criterion based on the dignity of the profession, may be regarded as necessary for the implementation of the legitimate objective of providing guarantees to consumers of geologists’ services, considering, inter alia, that that criterion is but one of a number of criteria for determining remuneration that are closely linked to the quality of geologists’ work, such as the scale and difficulty of the task to be performed, technical knowledge and the commitment required.
(see paras 55, 57, operative part 2)