QT v 02 Czech Republic a. s.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
ECLIECLI:EU:C:2023:233
Date23 March 2023
Docket NumberC-574/21
Celex Number62021CJ0574
CourtCourt of Justice (European Union)

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

23 March 2023 (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Self-employed commercial agents – Directive 86/653/EEC – Article 17(2)(a) – Termination of the agency contract – Entitlement of the commercial agent to an indemnity – Conditions for granting – Equitable indemnity – Assessment – Concept of ‘commission lost by the commercial agent’ – Commission on future transactions – New customers brought by the commercial agent – Existing customers with whom the commercial agent has significantly increased the volume of business – One-off commission payments)

In Case C‑574/21,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court, Czech Republic), made by decision of 29 June 2021, received at the Court on 20 September 2021, in the proceedings

QT

v

O2 Czech Republic a.s.,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of K. Jürimäe (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Safjan, N. Piçarra, N. Jääskinen and M. Gavalec, Judges,

Advocate General: T. Ćapeta,

Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 15 September 2022,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– QT, by D. Rašovský, advokát,

– O2 Czech Republic a.s., by L. Duffek and M. Olík, advokáti,

– the Czech Government, by T. Machovičová, O. Serdula, M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents,

– the German Government, by J. Möller, U. Bartl, J. Heitz and M. Hellmann, acting as Agents,

– the European Commission, by L. Armati, M. Mataija and P. Němečková, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 24 November 2022,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 17(2)(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between QT, a commercial agent, and the company O2 Czech Republic a.s. concerning a claim for compensation for the termination of the commercial agency contract between that commercial agent and that company.

Legal context

European Union law

3 The second and third recitals of Directive 86/653 state as follows:

‘Whereas the differences in national laws concerning commercial representation substantially affect the conditions of competition and the carrying-on of that activity within the Community and are detrimental both to the protection available to commercial agents vis-à-vis their principals and to the security of commercial transactions; whereas moreover those differences are such as to inhibit substantially the conclusion and operation of commercial representation contracts where principal and commercial agent are established in different Member States;

Whereas trade in goods between Member States should be carried on under conditions which are similar to those of a single market, and this necessitates approximation of the legal systems of the Member States to the extent required for the proper functioning of the common market; whereas in this regard the rules concerning conflict of laws do not, in the matter of commercial representation, remove the inconsistencies referred to above, nor would they even if they were made uniform, and accordingly the proposed harmonisation is necessary notwithstanding the existence of those rules.’

4 Under Article 1 of that directive:

‘1. The harmonisation measures prescribed by this Directive shall apply to the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States governing the relations between commercial agents and their principals.

2. For the purposes of this Directive, “commercial agent” shall mean a self-employed intermediary who has continuing authority to negotiate the sale or the purchase of goods on behalf of another person, hereinafter called the “principal”, or to negotiate and conclude such transactions on behalf of and in the name of that principal.

…’

5 Article 6 of that directive provides:

‘1. In the absence of any agreement on this matter between the parties, and without prejudice to the application of the compulsory provisions of the Member States concerning the level of remuneration, a commercial agent shall be entitled to the remuneration that commercial agents appointed for the goods forming the subject of his agency contract are customarily allowed in the place where he carries on his activities. If there is no such customary practice a commercial agent shall be entitled to reasonable remuneration taking into account all the aspects of the transaction.

2. Any part of the remuneration which varies with the number or value of business transactions shall be deemed to be commission within the meaning of this Directive.

3. Articles 7 to 12 shall not apply if the commercial agent is not remunerated wholly or in part by commission.’

6 Article 7 of the directive is worded as follows:

‘1. A commercial agent shall be entitled to commission on commercial transactions concluded during the period covered by the agency contract:

(a) where the transaction has been concluded as a result of his action; or

(b) where the transaction is concluded with a third party whom he has previously acquired as a customer for transactions of the same kind.

2. A commercial agent shall also be entitled to commission on transactions concluded during the period covered by the agency contract:

– either where he is entrusted with a specific geographical area or group of customers,

– or where he has an exclusive right to a specific geographical area or group of customers,

and where the transaction has been entered into with a customer belonging to that area or group.

Member States shall include in their legislation one of the possibilities referred to in the above two indents.’

7 Article 8 of Directive 86/653 states:

‘A commercial agent shall be entitled to commission on commercial transactions concluded after the agency contract has terminated:

(a) if the transaction is mainly attributable to the commercial agent’s efforts during the period covered by the agency contract and if the transaction was entered into within a reasonable period after that contract terminated; or

(b) if, in accordance with the conditions mentioned in Article 7, the order of the third party reached the principal or the commercial agent before the agency contract terminated.’

8 Article 17 of that directive provides:

‘1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the commercial agent is, after termination of the agency contract, indemnified in accordance with paragraph 2 or compensated for damage in accordance with paragraph 3.

2. (a) The commercial agent shall be entitled to an indemnity if and to the extent that:

– he has brought the principal new customers or has significantly increased the volume of business with existing customers and the principal continues to derive substantial benefits from the business with such customers, and

– the payment of this indemnity is equitable having regard to all the circumstances and, in particular, the commission lost by the commercial agent on the business transacted with such customers. Member States may provide for such circumstances also to include the application or otherwise of a restraint of trade clause, within the meaning of Article 20;

(b) The amount of the indemnity may not exceed a figure equivalent to an indemnity for one year calculated from the commercial agent’s average annual remuneration over the preceding five years and if the contract goes back less than five years the indemnity shall be calculated on the average for the period in question;

(c) The grant of such an indemnity shall not prevent the commercial agent from seeking damages.

3. The commercial agent shall be entitled to compensation for the damage he suffers as a result of the termination of his relations with the principal.

Such damage shall be deemed to occur particularly when the termination takes place in circumstances:

– depriving the commercial agent of the commission which proper performance of the agency contract would have procured him whilst providing the principal with substantial benefits linked to the commercial agent’s activities,

– and/or which have not enabled the commercial agent to amortize the costs and expenses that he had incurred for the performance of the agency contract on the principal’s advice.

4. Entitlement to the indemnity as provided for in paragraph 2 or to compensation for damage as provided for under paragraph 3, shall also arise where the agency contract is terminated as a result of the commercial agent’s death.

5. The commercial agent shall lose his entitlement to the indemnity in the instances provided for in paragraph 2 or to compensation for damage in the instances provided for in paragraph 3, if within one year following termination of the contract he has not notified the principal that he intends pursuing his entitlement.

6. The [European] Commission shall submit to the Council [of the European Union], within eight years following the date of notification of this Directive, a report on the implementation of this Article, and shall if necessary submit to it proposals for amendments.’

9 Article 18 of that directive provides:

‘The indemnity or compensation referred to in Article 17 shall not be payable:

(a) where the principal has terminated the agency contract because of default attributable to the commercial agent which would justify immediate termination of the agency contract under national law;

(b) where the commercial agent has terminated the agency contract, unless such termination is justified by circumstances attributable to the principal or on grounds of age, infirmity or illness of the commercial agent in consequence of which he cannot reasonably be required to continue his activities;

(c) where, with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 28 September 2023.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 28 September 2023
    ...1986 L 382, p. 17), may be cited as evidence of a degree of consensus; in that regard, see judgments of 23 March 2023, 02 Czech Republic (C‑574/21, EU:C:2023:233), and of 13 October 2022, Herios (C‑593/21, EU:C:2022:784). Another example would be Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliam......
1 cases
  • Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 28 September 2023.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 28 September 2023
    ...1986 L 382, p. 17), may be cited as evidence of a degree of consensus; in that regard, see judgments of 23 March 2023, 02 Czech Republic (C‑574/21, EU:C:2023:233), and of 13 October 2022, Herios (C‑593/21, EU:C:2022:784). Another example would be Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliam......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT