CJEU Joined Cases C‑532/15 and C‑538/15 / Judgment

Eurosaneamientos SL and Others v ArcelorMittal Zaragoza SA and Francesc de Bolós Pi v. Urbaser SA
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
The Court (First Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
08/12/2016
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2016:932
  • CJEU Joined Cases C‑532/15 and C‑538/15 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Services provided by Procuradores de los Tribunales — Tariff — Jurisdictions — Derogation impossible)

    Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:

    1. Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the fees of procuradores subject to a tariff which may be increased or decreased only by 12%, in respect of which the national courts merely check its strict application without being in a position, in exceptional circumstances, to derogate from the limits set by that tariff.
    2. The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the second and third questions in Case C‑532/15 and the third to fifth questions in Case C‑538/15 referred by the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza (Provincial Court, Zaragoza, Spain) and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot (Court of First Instance, Olot, Spain) respectively.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)
    1. Finally, the referring court is of the view that the mandatory setting of the price of certain services, regardless of the work actually carried out and any particular features of the case other than the amount in dispute, could constitute an infringement of the right to a fair trial for the purposes of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’) and of Article 47 of the Charter, in so far as, by the costs, a party to the dispute could find himself required to pay predetermined charges without being able to ensure that they are proportionate or justified, which is a factor likely effectively to constitute an obstacle to bringing proceedings the outcome of which is uncertain or open to doubt.
    1. By the third question in Case C‑532/15 and the fifth question in Case C‑538/15, the referring courts wish to know, in essence, whether Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow clients effectively to contest the fees of a procurador when those fees are disproportionate and do not correspond to the service actually performed.
    2. It is the settled case-law of the Court that the fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union are applicable in all situations governed by EU law, but not outside such situations. In this respect the Court has already observed that it has no power to examine the compatibility with the Charter of national legislation lying outside the scope of EU law. However, if such national legislation falls within the scope of EU law, the Court, when requested to give a preliminary ruling, must provide all the guidance as to interpretation needed in order for the national court to determine whether that legislation is compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which the Court ensures (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson, C‑617/10, EU:C:2013:105, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).