CASE COMMENT : ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES - ARTICLES 81 EC AND 10 EC - NATIONAL RULES - PROHIBITION OF DEROGATION FROM THE MINIMUM LIMITS FOR THE FEES

National regulations: The ECJ confirms its Arduino and Cipolla case-law and rules that Articles 81 EC and 10 EC combined do not preclude the Italian law prohibiting derogations from the minimum limits for the lawyer’s fees (Hospital Consulting / Esaote)

KEYWORDS

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. – ECJ (Ord.), 5 May 2008, Hospital Consulting Srl and Others v Esaote SpA and Others, Case C-386/07. Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) for a preliminary ruling on the compatibility of Italian national legislation on the

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

This document is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Non-authorised use of this document constitutes a violation of the publisher's rights and may be punished by up to 3 years imprisonment and up to a € 300 000 fine (Art. L 335-2 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle). Personal use of this document is authorised within the limits of Art. L 122-5 CPI and DRM protection.

PDF Version

Author

  • European Court of Justice (Luxembourg)
    Luxembourg 76 contributions 145743 visits

Quotation

Cyril Sarrazin, National regulations: The ECJ confirms its Arduino and Cipolla case-law and rules that Articles 81 EC and 10 EC combined do not preclude the Italian law prohibiting derogations from the minimum limits for the lawyer’s fees (Hospital Consulting / Esaote), 5 May 2008, Concurrences N° 3-2008, Art. N° 19998, p. 85

Visites 4016

All reviews