The case of brood of Paul Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone and Others (Case C-19/07) [2008], complex a assurance on association laws apropos to bartering agents. According to Article 7(2) of Council charge (EEC) 86/653 (On the allocation of the laws of the affiliate states apropos to self-employed bartering agents) ("the Directive"):
"A bartering abettor shall additionally be advantaged to bureau on affairs assured during the aeon covered by the bureau arrangement either breadth he was entrusted with a specific bounded breadth or accumulation of customers... And breadth the transaction has been entered into with a chump acceptance to that breadth or group...".
Article 10 provides as follows:
"(1) The bureau shall become due as anon as and to the admeasurement that one of the afterward affairs obtains:
(a) the arch has accomplished the transaction; or the arch should, according to his acceding with the third party, accept accomplished the transaction; or...
(c) the third affair has accomplished the transaction.
(2) The bureau shall become due at the latest back the third affair has accomplished his allotment of the transaction or should accept done so if the arch had accomplished his allotment of the transaction, as he should have".
In 1987, the aboriginal acknowledging in this case assured an absolute authorization with C. The applicants in this case were brood to C's estate. The absolute authorization anxious the aboriginal respondent's representation of C's subsidiaries, namely the additional and third respondents, in their affairs with the importers, wholesalers and retailers of their appurtenances in a specific bounded area.
Before the abortion of that contract, C requested acquittal of assorted sums. Such sums included commissions apropos to purchases fabricated by two companies accustomed in his bounded area.
The requests for acquittal were banned on the arena that the purchases anxious had been fabricated from axial affairs admiral or dealers in city France, an breadth alfresco the ascendancy of the respondents, and after any activity on C's part.
C again brought an activity apropos acquittal of commission.
The civic cloister fabricated a advertence to the cloister of Justice of the European Communities. The catechism anxious a appeal for a basic cardinal on the estimation of Article 7(2) of the Directive. The catechism referred by the civic cloister was as to whether Article 7(2) of the charge was to be interpreted as acceptation that:
"A bartering abettor entrusted with a specific bounded breadth was advantaged to bureau breadth a bartering transaction amid a third affair and a chump acceptance to that breadth had been assured after any action, either absolute or indirect, on the principal's part".
It was captivated as follows:
The cloister was of the assessment that
· Article 7(2) of the charge had to be interpreted as acceptation that a bartering abettor entrusted with a specific bounded breadth did not accept the appropriate to a bureau for affairs assured by barter acceptance to that breadth after any action, absolute or indirect, on the allotment of the principal.
· Article 7(2) alone refers to any affairs assured during the aeon covered by the bureau contract. There is no affirmation that those affairs had to be entered into with a chump acceptance to a bounded breadth or a accumulation of barter for whom the bartering abettor was responsible.
· There is not an accurate affirmation for activity on the allotment of the principal, and there is no affirmation for activity on the allotment of the bartering agent.
· However, it should be acclaimed that back because Article 7(2) in affiliation with Article 10, the bartering agent's appropriate to bureau arises either:
§ back the arch has (or should have) agitated out his obligation; or
§ back the third affair to the bureau contract, namely, the customer, has (or should have) agitated out his obligation.
· The attendance of the arch in the affairs for which the bartering abettor could affirmation bureau was indispensable. It accordingly followed that the bartering abettor could affirmation commission. The bartering agent's affirmation for bureau could be fabricated on the base of a transaction alone to the admeasurement that the arch had acted, anon or indirectly, in the cessation of that transaction.
· As a result, this meant that it was for the civic cloister to establish:
"Whether or not the affirmation afore it, adjourned in the ablaze of the aim of attention the bartering abettor and of the obligation on the arch to act accurately and in acceptable faith, accustomed it to authorize the actuality of such action, be that activity of a acknowledged nature".
© RT COOPERS, 2008. This Briefing Note does not accommodate a absolute or complete account of the law apropos to the issues discussed nor does it aggregate acknowledged advice. It is advised alone to highlight accepted issues. Specialist acknowledged admonition should consistently be approved in affiliation to accurate circumstances.
