[autom.vertaling] De voorwerpen van de Commissie aan geadviseerde minimumprijsschaal van de Vereniging van Belgische Architecten (en)

The European Commission has sent the Belgian Architects' Association (Ordre des architectes Orde van architecten) a warning that its recommended minimum fee scale could constitute a violation of EU competition rules. The statement of objections reflects the preliminary view of the Commission and does not prejudice the final outcome of the case. The Belgian Architects' Association now has two months to reply to the Commission's preliminary objections and can also ask for an oral hearing.

Competition Commissioner Mario Monti said: "Fixed or recommended fee scales can harm both the consumers and the professionals. It is highly doubtful whether these fee scales really contribute to guaranteeing a high level of quality. On the contrary, they can prevent consumers from finding the best match to their needs in terms of value for money. The professionals have no incentive to innovate and become cost efficient."

According to the Commission's preliminary view a recommended minimum fee scale as established by the Belgian Architects' Association may constitute an infringement of Article 81 of the Treaty for the following reasons:

• A recommended fee scale is likely to provide a price floor preventing efficient service providers from competing on price if their efficiency allows them to produce the service at lower cost. Price floors also protect less efficient competitors and reduce the incentive to improve quality and price of professional services.

• The recommended fee scale lays down the architects' fees as a percentage of the value of the works realised by the entrepreneur. In the Commission's preliminary view, fees charged for professional services should reflect the architect' s skills, efficiency and his costs and perhaps his fame or notoriety and should not be dependent solely on the value of the works or the price of the entrepreneur. In any event, the architect should determine his fee independently of competitors and in agreement with the client only.

• The Belgian Architects' Association may have abused its regulatory functions by adopting a rule whose object is the restricting of competition under the name of a "deontological rule".

The Belgian Architects' Association's fee scale dates back to 1967. This fee scale was never formally endorsed by the State. The recommended minimum fee scale is meant to apply to all architectural services provided in Belgium, regardless of whether the intervention of an architect is legally required or not.

According to the Commission's preliminary investigation the fee scale is frequently used in architect's contracts. The economic importance of architectural services in Belgium is considerable.

In 2000, the turnover achieved in the provision of architectural and engineering services and related technical consultancy amounted to € 4.4 billion. This corresponds to 15% of the turnover achieved in the Belgian construction sector.

Background

Ten years after its first decision condemning the fixed tariffs for professional services in that case those provided by Italian customs agents⁽¹⁾ the Commission is disappointed to see that such minimum price agreements still persist. This is why it has now sent the Belgian Architects' Association a statement of objections informing it that its recommended minimum fee scale could constitute a violation of EU competition rules and that a fine could be imposed.

In the context of the Commission's stocktaking exercise on professional rules the Commissioner invited all the professions to examine fee scales and other restrictive regulations and to reconsider whether they are truly necessary to guarantee proper practice of the profession.

Other Member States

Recommended fee scales were already scrutinised by the French competition authorities and the Office of Fair Trade in the UK.

The French Conseil de la Concurrence prohibited⁽²⁾ the French Architects' Association from further elaborating and distributing fee scales. The OFT came to the conclusion that the Royal Institute of British Architects' (RIBA) indicative fee guidance could facilitate collusion. It then accepted the RIBA's new fee guidance based on historical information and the collation of price trends that do not provide a lead on the current year's prices.

Now that the Commission is taking up the case of the Belgian architects, it is also to be interpreted as a strong signal that similar rules in other countries should be reviewed as well.

In his speech at the Liberal Professions Conference on 28 October, Monti indeed encouraged professional associations to revisit their rules and warned them that "using antitrust instruments is always possible where necessary." (more information on this conference is available on

<A onclick="popup(this.onclick="popup(this.href+'&noframes=1',0,0);return false" href+'&noframes=1',0,0);return false" HREF="http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/liberalization/conference/librofconference.htm">http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/liberalization/conference/librofconference.htm

^{(1)93/438/EEC: Commission Decision of 30 June 1993 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33.407 - CNSD) Official Journal L 203 , 13/08/1993 p. 0027 - 0033}

^{(2)Decision no. 97D45 of 10 June 1997}