Official Journal of the European Union

Series C

C/2024/1825

11.3.2024

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 January 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Em akaunt BG ЕООД v Zastrahovatelno aktsionerno druzhestvo Armeets AD

(Case C-438/22, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) Em akaunt BG)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Setting of minimum fee amounts by a lawyers’ professional organisation - Decision by an association of undertakings - Court prohibited from ordering reimbursement of fees in an amount less than those minimum amounts - Restriction of competition - Justifications - Legitimate objectives - Quality of the services provided by the lawyers - Implementation of the judgment of 23 November 2017, CHEZ Elektro Bulgaria and FrontEx International (C-427/16 and C-428/16, EU:C:2017:890) - Whether the Wouters case-law may be relied on in a situation involving a restriction of competition by object)

(C/2024/1825)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Em akaunt BG ЕООД

Defendant: Zastrahovatelno aktsionerno druzhestvo Armeets AD

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 101(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court finds that a regulation fixing minimum amounts for lawyers’ fees, made mandatory by national legislation, is contrary to Article 101(1) TFEU, it is required to disapply that national regulation in respect of the party ordered to pay the costs of lawyers’ fees, including when that party did not sign any agreement for lawyers’ services and lawyers’ fees.

2.Article 101(1) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which, first, does not allow a lawyer and his client to agree remuneration in an amount below the minimum amount laid down in a regulation issued by a professional organisation of lawyers such as the Visshia advokatski savet (Supreme Council of the Legal Profession) and, secondly, does not authorise the courts to order reimbursement of fees in an amount less than that minimum amount, must be deemed to constitute a restriction on competition ‘by object’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. Where there is such a restriction, the legitimate objectives allegedly pursued by that national legislation may not be relied on in order to bring the conduct in question outside the scope of the prohibition on agreements, decisions and concerted practices which are restrictive of competition, laid down in Article 101(1) TFEU.

3.Article 101(2) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a national court finds that a regulation fixing minimum amounts of lawyers’ fees, made mandatory by national legislation, disregards the prohibition laid down in Article 101(1) TFEU, it is required to disapply that national legislation, including when the minimum amounts provided for by that regulation reflect actual market prices for lawyers’ services.

* Language of the case: English.

(1) OJ C 408, 24.10.2022