Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2012:553
Date: 2012-09-06
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Telecommunications
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Poland

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 6 September 2012 1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Conditions relating to a signatory — Status of a third party in relation to the parties — Party represented by legal advisers employed by an entity connected to the party — Breach of the independence requirement (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19) 2. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Conditions relating to a signatory — Status of a third party in relation to the parties — Independent interpretation (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, fourth para.) 3. Appeals — Grounds of appeal — Inadequate or contradictory grounds — Admissibility — Scope of the obligation to state reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) 1. The conception of the lawyer’s role in the legal order of the European Union, which is derived from the legal traditions common to the Member States, and on which Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice is based, is that of collaborating in the administration of justice and of being required to provide, in full independence and in the overriding interests of that cause, such legal assistance as the client needs. The requirement of independence of a lawyer implies that there must be no employment relationship between the lawyer and his client. The concept of the independence of lawyers is determined not only positively, that is by reference to professional ethical obligations, but also negatively, that is to say, by the absence of an employment relationship That reasoning applies with the same force in a situation in which the legal advisers are employed by an entity connected to the party they represent. Their relationship of employment with such an entity, even if it is formally separate from the party represented, is liable to affect their independence since the interests of that entity are largely the same as those of the party represented. There is therefore a risk that the professional opinion of those advisers would be, at least partly, influenced by their working environment. (see paras 23-25) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 33-35) 3. The obligation to state reasons does not require the General Court to provide an account which follows exhaustively and one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the case and the reasoning may therefore be implicit on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know why the General Court has not upheld their arguments and provides the Court of Justice with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review. As regards the provisions concerning the representation of non-privileged parties before the Courts of the European Union, the General Court may correctly find that those provisions must be interpreted, as far as possible, independently and without reference to national law. To reject an action introduced by a party’s legal advisers, employed by an entity connected to that party, the General Court is in no way obliged to analyse the specific form of employment of lawyers in the Member State concerned, nor the different levels of independence they enjoy, nor the provisions of national law regulating their activities. (see paras 48, 49)