## Facts

- Italy regulated lawyers’ fees through a tariff system setting minimum and maximum amounts by reference to procedural stage, complexity, and nature of work.
- The fee scales were prepared by the National Council of Lawyers and approved by the Minister for Justice after consultations with relevant bodies.
- Although later reforms reduced the binding nature of minimum tariffs in certain circumstances, maximum tariffs remained mandatory absent a lawyer–client agreement derogating from them.
- National courts could depart from tariff limits in specified situations (e.g., exceeding maxima for exceptionally important cases; going below minima for straightforward cases with reasons).
- The European Commission brought an infringement action alleging that Italy, by requiring compliance with maximum tariffs, failed to fulfil obligations under Articles 43 EC (establishment) and 49 EC (services).

## Issues

1. Whether mandatory maximum tariffs for lawyers’ fees, applicable in Italy absent a contrary agreement, constituted a restriction on freedom of establishment under Article 43 EC.
2. Whether those rules constituted a restriction on freedom to provide services under Article 49 EC.
3. Whether the Commission proved that the rules had the object or effect of impairing access for lawyers from other Member States under conditions of normal and effective competition.

## Decision

- The CJEU (Grand Chamber) dismissed the Commission’s action in full.
- The Court held that the mandatory maximum tariffs, in themselves, were not shown to constitute a restriction on Articles 43 or 49 EC.
- The Court found the Commission failed to demonstrate that the rules prevented or materially impeded access to the Italian legal-services market under conditions of normal and effective competition.
- Costs were imposed on the Commission as the unsuccessful party.

## Legal Principles

- A national rule does not constitute a Treaty “restriction” merely because other Member States apply less strict or more commercially favourable rules.
- A restriction is shown, in particular, where the measure deprives economic operators of access to the host market under conditions of normal and effective competition.
- In infringement proceedings, the Commission bears the burden to prove, with concrete support, that a contested national measure has the object or effect of restricting Treaty freedoms.
- The need for cross-border providers to comply with, and adjust to, host-state rules on pricing does not alone establish a restriction.
- A pricing framework that allows derogation by agreement and adjustment by courts may weaken claims that the framework impedes market access.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that Italy’s non-discriminatory and adaptable maximum-fee tariff system for lawyers was not proven to hinder market entry or participation by lawyers from other Member States, so no breach of Articles 43 or 49 EC was established.


Commission v. Italy, Case C-565/08, 2011 E.C.R. I-2101 (C.J.E.U. 2011)