Order — ECLI:EU:T:2005:204
Date: 2005-06-08
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions;Access to documents
Concepts: General;Contentious procedure
Procedure: Action for annulment - decision unnecessary
Origin: Italy

Summary of the order Actions for annulment – Action against a decision of the Commission refusing access to a document originating from a Member State – Document annexed to the application but purportedly not passed to the applicant by his lawyer – Action devoid of purpose having regard to the concept of representation in court proceedings – Irrelevance of national rules of professional ethics (Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) An action brought by an applicant for annulment of a decision of the Commission refusing that applicant access to a document originating from a Member State is devoid of purpose where the document concerned is one of the annexes to the application. The Court of First Instance cannot take cognisance of statements made by the applicant’s lawyer to the effect that, pursuant to his ethical obligations, that lawyer has produced – in his personal capacity and unbeknownst to the applicant – the document to which access is requested on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. Representation in court proceedings, which is obligatory in the case of the Court of First Instance, consists in one person acting in such proceedings in the name and on behalf of another person, with the legal effects of the proceedings being exclusively to the benefit of the latter, or exclusively to be borne by the latter. The representative, in this case the lawyer, is no more than an intermediary for the person represented, who alone – so far as the Court is concerned – is party to the proceedings. Moreover, it is not for the Court to consider whether that lawyer has complied with the national rules of professional ethics by which he is bound. (see paras 26, 28-32, 34)