# C_2020103EN.01000501.xml

| 30.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/5

---

Appeal brought on 10 August 2018 by PC against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 30 May 2018 in Case T-664/16, PJ v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-531/18 P)

(2020/C 103/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: PC (represented by: J. Lipinsky and C. von Donat, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: PJ, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Erdmann & Rossi GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | set aside the operative part of the order of the General Court of the European Union of 30 May 2018 in Case T-664/16 and refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

set aside the operative part of the order of the General Court of the European Union of 30 May 2018 in Case T-664/16 and refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

| 2. | order the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the European Union Intellectual Property Office and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal, alleging:

| 1. | Infringement of Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice (in conjunction with Article 51(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)
  The conclusion reached in the order under appeal that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the appellant’s application for replacement is based on an error in law in finding that the action in Case T-664/16 was inadmissible and an error in law in finding that the relationship between the appellant and the applicant was relevant. The General Court dismissed the action in Case T-664/16 as inadmissible in breach of Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice, since it misapplied the parties’ obligation laid down in that provision to be ‘represented by a lawyer’. The General Court overestimates the requirements of the lawyer’s independence. The wording and meaning of Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice do not justify the General Court’s interpretation. The General Court’s interpretation also finds no basis in the case-law of the Court of Justice. It is not foreseeable and breaches the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice (in conjunction with Article 51(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)

The conclusion reached in the order under appeal that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the appellant’s application for replacement is based on an error in law in finding that the action in Case T-664/16 was inadmissible and an error in law in finding that the relationship between the appellant and the applicant was relevant. The General Court dismissed the action in Case T-664/16 as inadmissible in breach of Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice, since it misapplied the parties’ obligation laid down in that provision to be ‘represented by a lawyer’. The General Court overestimates the requirements of the lawyer’s independence. The wording and meaning of Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice do not justify the General Court’s interpretation. The General Court’s interpretation also finds no basis in the case-law of the Court of Justice. It is not foreseeable and breaches the principle of legal certainty.

| 2. | Infringement of Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice (in conjunction with Article 51(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)
  The order under appeal also infringes Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice (in conjunction with Article 175(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court), since the General Court assumes, misapplying that provision, that the appellant was not represented by an independent lawyer when lodging the application for replacement and that its application was therefore inadmissible. The General Court’s interpretation of the requirement of the lawyer’s independence is not justified by the wording or the meaning of Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice (in conjunction with Article 175(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice (in conjunction with Article 51(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)

The order under appeal also infringes Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice (in conjunction with Article 175(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court), since the General Court assumes, misapplying that provision, that the appellant was not represented by an independent lawyer when lodging the application for replacement and that its application was therefore inadmissible. The General Court’s interpretation of the requirement of the lawyer’s independence is not justified by the wording or the meaning of Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice (in conjunction with Article 175(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court).

| 3. | Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
  Lastly, the order under appeal infringes Article 47(1) and (2) of the Charter, since the General Court’s broad interpretation of the concept of ‘independence’ of an applicant’s lawyer, which cannot be inferred from the wording of Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice, results in the appellant being denied effective judicial protection. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Lastly, the order under appeal infringes Article 47(1) and (2) of the Charter, since the General Court’s broad interpretation of the concept of ‘independence’ of an applicant’s lawyer, which cannot be inferred from the wording of Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice, results in the appellant being denied effective judicial protection.

---