Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:T:2024:670
Date: 2024-10-02
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Common foreign and security policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Belgium

summary of the pleas in law relied on. In addition, it is settled case-law that that summary must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary without having to seek further information. If an action is to be admissible, the essential points of fact and law on which it is based must be apparent from the text of the application itself, even if only stated briefly, provided the statement is coherent and comprehensible, in order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice. It is also settled case-law that any plea which is not adequately articulated in the application initiating the proceedings must be held to be inadmissible. Similar requirements apply where a submission is made in support of a plea in law (see judgment of 12 February 2020, Kampete v Council, T‑164/18, not published, EU:T:2020:54, paragraph 112 and the case-law cited). 113 In the present case, the applicants submit, drawing on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and of the Court of Justice, that safeguarding the fundamental role of lawyers, that is to say, that of defending litigants, is necessary in order to promote, within the European Union, the fundamental values set out in Article 2 TEU, such as democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and to guarantee the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter. 114 Interference with the independence of lawyers arises specifically from the fact that the prohibition at issue, through the exemption provisions thereto, restricts lawyers’ ability to accept and then perform their instructions. The prohibition at issue is thereby prejudicial to the fundamental role of lawyers and, consequently, to the fundamental values set out in Article 2 TEU. 115 The applicants accordingly claim that the prohibition at issue, to the extent that, as a matter of principle, it restricts the provision of legal advisory services by lawyers, is likely to contravene the fundamental values set out in Article 2 TEU. 116 It follows that the applicants have, even if only briefly, stated coherently and comprehensively, in the application, the essential points of fact and law on which they rely. 117 Consequently, the plea of inadmissibility based on Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure must be rejected. (2) The first complaint, alleging interference with the independence of lawyers 118 The applicants, supported by the Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer and the Ordre des avocats de Genève, claim that the requirement to apply for authorisation in order to provide legal advisory services constitutes interference with the independence of lawyers, which is necessary in order to guarantee compliance with the values of the European Union, enshrined in Article 2 TEU, such as democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The independence of lawyers is therefore necessary in order to guarantee the rule of law. 119 It is argued that the provisions at issue undermine the independence of lawyers, both from the public authorities and from their clients, and prevent them from discharging their duty to act in good faith towards those clients. The exceptions laid down in those provisions are limited and cover only some legal advisory services. The applicants note that the Code of Conduct for European lawyers drawn up by the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe precludes a third party, and with all the more reason a public authority, from influencing the process by which a lawyer accepts and performs his or her instructions. 120 The applicants also state that the authorities have a duty not to adopt measures that would jeopardise the independence of lawyers. The fact that national or European authorities may limit the matters in which lawyers may act and the persons they may advise constitutes interference with the independence of lawyers, rather than solely with their freedom to provide certain services. 121 The Ordre des avocats de Genève adds that the independence of lawyers from the public authorities, third parties and their clients is protected by Article 47 of the Charter and Article 2 TEU. The prohibition at issue undermines that independence without justification, whereas lawyers must be free to choose whether or not to handle a matter, in such a way as not to restrict the ability of any and all persons to exercise their rights. 122 The Council, supported by the Republic of Estonia, the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, refutes any interference with the independence of lawyers. 123 In that regard, the Court recalls that it follows from Article 2 TEU that the European Union is founded on values, such as the rule of law, which are common to the Member States in a society in which, inter alia, justice prevails (judgment of 20 April 2021, Repubblika, C‑896/19, EU:C:2021:311, paragraph 62). Any person whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal, since an effective judicial review designed to ensure compliance with provisions of EU law is of the essence of the rule of law (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 March 2017, Rosneft, C‑72/15, EU:C:2017:236, paragraph 73 and the case-law cited). 124 It is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that lawyers are officers of the court who provide, in full independence, such legal assistance as their clients need. The Court of Justice has indeed recognised the role of lawyers, who are required to provide, in full independence and in the overriding interests of justice, such legal assistance as the client needs (judgment of 18 May 1982, AM & S Europe v Commission, 155/79, EU:C:1982:157, paragraph 24). It has also pointed out that the fundamental task of lawyers entails, on the one hand, the requirement, the importance of which is recognised in all the Member States, that any person must be able, without constraint, to consult a lawyer whose profession encompasses, by its very nature, the giving of independent legal advice to all those in need of it and, on the other, the correlative duty of the lawyer to act in good faith towards his or her client (judgment of 8 December 2022, Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others, C‑694/20, EU:C:2022:963, paragraph 28). 125 In addition, the Court of Justice has held that the independence of lawyers is particularly important for the purpose of protecting their clients’ right to an effective remedy, and requires, in order for actions brought by individuals to be admissible, that the applicant must be represented by an independent third party. The objective of representation by a lawyer, referred to in Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, consists above all of ensuring the protection and defence of the interests of the client, in line with the law and professional rules and codes of conduct. The requirement of the independence of lawyers is determined not only negatively, that is to say, by the absence of an employment relationship, but also positively, that is, by reference to professional ethical obligations. In that latter regard, independence must be understood not as the lack of any connection whatsoever between the lawyer and his or her client, but only of those connections which have a manifestly detrimental effect on his or her capacity to carry out the task of defending his or her client while acting in that client’s interests to the greatest possible extent, in line with the law and professional rules and codes of conduct (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 March 2022, PJ and PC v EUIPO, C‑529/18 P and C‑531/18 P, EU:C:2022:218, paragraphs 65, 66 and 69 and the case-law cited). A person’s right to legal advice given in full independence by a lawyer is therefore inherent in the right to an effective remedy. 126 Finally, in the case which gave rise to the judgment of 19 February 2002, Wouters and Others (C‑309/99, EU:C:2002:98), the Court of Justice, having determined that there were no EU rules in the field of the independence of lawyers, referred to the applicable national legal framework, namely the Samenwerkingsverordening 1993 (Regulation on Joint Professional Activity, 1993), adopted by the Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten (the Netherlands Bar Association), in order to draw the boundaries of the independence of lawyers (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 February 2002, Wouters and Others, C‑309/99, EU:C:2002:98, paragraphs 99 to 102). 127 It is clear from the foregoing that, notwithstanding the absence of a rule of primary law enshrining and defining the independence of lawyers, the Court of Justice has recognised the importance of such independence for the purposes of guaranteeing the right of all persons subject to the law to an effective remedy, in contexts where there is a link with judicial proceedings. 128 Admittedly, it is apparent from the provisions of the Code of Conduct for European lawyers to which the applicants refer, according to which the independence of lawyers ‘is necessary in non-contentious matters as well as in litigation’, that independence may also extend to legal advisory activities unconnected with judicial proceedings. 129 Nevertheless, the provisions of the Code of Conduct for European lawyers are not rules of EU law and cannot constitute a legal basis for the recognition of the independence of lawyers at EU level. Moreover, those provisions do not affect the freedom of each Member State to regulate the practice of the profession of lawyer in its territory. For that reason, the rules applicable to that profession may differ greatly from one Member State to another (judgment of 19 February 2002, Wouters and Others, C‑309/99, EU:C:2002:98, paragraph 99). It is, moreover, common ground between the parties that the applicants have failed to indicate the specific conception of the independence of lawyers as understood in Belgium. In any event, it is apparent from the provisions of the Code of Conduct for European lawyers that the independence that they advocate in non-contentious matters is intended to ensure that lawyers advise their clients without fear or favour, unconnected with any personal interest and free of any external pressure. Those provisions therefore concern the way in which lawyers must perform their advisory activity. The provisions of the Code of Conduct for European lawyers are therefore not such as to justify the independence of lawyers, which the Court of Justice has recognised as being necessary in order to protect the right to an effective remedy, guaranteeing complete freedom for lawyers in the cases in which they decide to act in all fields of legal advice. 130 In the present case, it follows from the analysis of the first part of the first plea in law that the prohibition at issue does not apply to legal advisory services which are provided by a lawyer and have a link with judicial proceedings, and that it therefore does not entail any interference with the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter. 131 Accordingly, it has not been established that the prohibition at issue is capable of giving rise to interference with the independence of lawyers, as recognised by the case-law of the Court of Justice for the purpose of protecting that right. 132 Moreover, even if the independence of lawyers, in the same way as the protection of professional secrecy under Article 7 of the Charter, were also to be recognised outside a contentious context, and that there were found to be interference with that independence, it should be borne in mind that such independence does not mean that the profession of lawyer cannot be subject to limitations. That independence may be subject to restrictions justified by objectives of general interest pursued by the European Union, provided that such restrictions do not constitute, in relation to the aim pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very essence of the independence of lawyers (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 March 2017, Rosneft, C‑72/15, EU:C:2017:236, paragraph 148). 133 First, it is clear from paragraphs 94 to 103 of the present judgment that the prohibition at issue, as delimited in particular by the exemption provisions, pursues objectives of general interest. 134 Second, although the exemption provisions afford the competent authorities the possibility of lifting the prohibition at issue in relation to certain legal advisory services, those provisions do not enable the competent authorities to influence the actual content of any advice that might be provided by the lawyer to the Russian Government or to a given entity established in Russia. The same applies to the prohibition at issue itself. Where a lawyer has the benefit of an exemption, or even an exception, he or she remains free when performing the activity of advising his or her client. The prohibition at issue and, in particular, the exemption provisions therefore do not constitute disproportionate and intolerable interference which impairs the very essence of the independence of lawyers. 135 Accordingly, even if there were interference with the independence of lawyers, it would be justified and proportionate. 136 Consequently, the first complaint in the first part of the second plea in law must be rejected. (3) The second complaint, alleging interference with the values of the rule of law 137 The applicants, supported by the Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer and the Ordre des avocats de Genève, claim that it is necessary to safeguard the role of lawyers in order to promote the fundamental values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. The prohibition at issue therefore undermines the rule of law, which encompasses several principles, including the principles of legal certainty, justice, access to justice and respect for human rights. Access to legal advice given by a lawyer, including in non-contentious matters, serves to ensure compliance with the rule of law, as numerous political and legal documents confirm. Such undermining of the rule of law is manifestly disproportionate and it is not possible to interpret the prohibition at issue in a manner consistent with higher-ranking rules. 138 The Council, supported by the Republic of Estonia, the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, disputes the applicants’ position. In particular, the Council takes the view that the matters added by the applicants at the stage of the reply go beyond mere amplification and are therefore inadmissible under Article 84 of the Rules of Procedure. 139 It is necessary to examine in turn the Council’s plea of inadmissibility and the merits of the second complaint in the first part of the applicants’ second plea in law. (i) The plea of inadmissibility under Article 84 of the Rules of Procedure 140 In accordance with Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure, no new pleas in law may be introduced in the course of proceedings unless they are based on matters of law or fact which have come to light in the course of the procedure. 141 In the present case, as from the stage of the application, the applicants have maintained that the evaluation of a person’s legal situation, which the provision of legal advice made possible, was an essential activity in a State governed by the rule of law. The provision of such advice by a lawyer is therefore guaranteed by Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter and also constitutes a value common to all the Member States. 142 The applicants then noted, in the reply, that the concept of the rule of law included, in particular, the principles of legal certainty, justice and access to justice, as the Council itself had observed in the defence. They also stated, following on from their application, that Article 2 TEU enshrined human rights. 143 Next, the applicants stated that access to legal advice from a lawyer, which is limited by the prohibition at issue, was necessary in order to ensure respect for each of the aforementioned rights and principles. Access to legal advice from a lawyer is, according to the applicants, therefore required in order to ensure compliance with the rule of law. 144 Accordingly, the arguments put forward by the applicants in the reply amplify the pleas and complaints contained in the application and are therefore admissible. 145 The plea of inadmissibility must therefore be rejected. (ii) Interference with the values of the rule of law 146 The Court recalls that the principle that one of the European Union’s founding values is the rule of law follows from both Article 2 TEU, which is included in the common provisions of the EU Treaty, and Article 21 TEU, concerning the European Union’s external action, to which Article 23 TEU, relating to the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), refers (judgment of 22 June 2021, Venezuela v Council (Whether a third State is affected), C‑872/19 P, EU:C:2021:507, paragraph 49). 147 As has been recalled in paragraphs 40 and 41 of the present judgment, the fundamental right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter is of cardinal importance as a guarantee of the value of the rule of law, which requires free access to EU law for all natural or legal persons of the European Union and that individuals must be able to ascertain unequivocally what their rights and obligations are. 148 The Court has also stated that there is a non-exhaustive list of principles and standards capable of falling within the concept of the rule of law. That list includes the principles of legality and legal certainty, the right to effective judicial review, extending to respect for fundamental rights, and the principle of equality before the law (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 September 2016, Klyuyev v Council, T‑340/14, EU:T:2016:496, paragraph 88). 149 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, by their arguments, the applicants are not claiming a breach of the rule of law as such, but rather of its constituent values which take the legal form of principles of EU law. 150 By their first argument, the applicants submit that the ability of any person freely to access legal advice from a lawyer, in both contentious and non-contentious matters, is guaranteed under the principle of legal certainty. 151 That fundamental principle of EU law requires, in particular, that rules should be clear and precise, so that individuals may ascertain unequivocally what their rights and obligations are and may take steps accordingly (judgment of 28 March 2017, Rosneft, C‑72/15, EU:C:2017:236, paragraph 161). 152 The principle of legal certainty therefore concerns the characteristics which rules of law must inherently possess. As the Council correctly states, that principle does not, however, consist in guaranteeing that lawyers or other legal professionals can give advice as to how those rules must be understood. 153 The applicants’ first argument must therefore be rejected. 154 By their second argument, the applicants submit that the ability of any person freely to access legal advice from a lawyer, in both contentious and non-contentious matters, serves to ensure access to justice. 155 As the Council notes, the right of access to justice is guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter. As is clear from the response to the first part of the first plea in law, the right of access to a lawyer is recognised only where it involves a link with judicial proceedings, in order to safeguard the guarantees arising from Article 47 of the Charter. In the present case, according to the interpretation set out in paragraphs 51 and 60 to 63 of the present judgment, the prohibition at issue specifically does not apply to legal advisory services which have such a link. 156 Furthermore, as has been stated in response to the first plea in law, no rule of EU law, including Article 2 TEU, enshrines a fundamental right to consult a lawyer in non-contentious matters. 157 The applicants’ second argument must, as a consequence, be rejected. 158 By their third argument, the applicants submit that the ability of any person freely to access legal advice from a lawyer, in both contentious and non-contentious matters, ensures respect within a society for human rights, in particular for the fundamental right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter. 159 It is clear that, apart from the right to respect for communications between lawyers and their clients enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter, the applicants have failed to identify any other rights adversely affected by the prohibition at issue and by the exemption provisions. As has been stated in the analysis of the second part of the first plea in law, that prohibition, including the exemption provisions, does not entail any interference with the fundamental right guaranteed in Article 7 of the Charter. 160 The applicants’ third argument is, therefore, unfounded. 161 By their fourth argument, the applicants submit that the provision of legal advisory services in non-contentious matters forms part of the essential activity of lawyers, which is protected by the values of the rule of law. 162 However, it cannot be inferred from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights or of the Court of Justice that Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter, considered in isolation or together, grant a right, in non-contentious matters, to be advised by a lawyer, as is clear from paragraphs 52 to 63 of the present judgment. The right to be advised by a lawyer, guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter, applies only on condition that there is a link with judicial proceedings. 163 Moreover, the provision of legal advisory services by a lawyer in non-contentious matters is guaranteed neither by Article 2 TEU nor, more broadly, by EU law. 164 The applicants’ fourth argument is therefore unfounded. 165 By their fifth argument, the applicants claim that the prohibition at issue cannot be interpreted in such a way as to be compatible with the rule of law. It consists, they claim, of an outright prohibition on providing legal advisory services which is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty, justice, access to justice, and respect for human rights. 166 However, as the Council maintains, the prohibition at issue is restricted in scope. That prohibition has been limited by the exception provisions and the exemption provisions. Taking those provisions into account, the Court has found, in response to the first plea in law, that the prohibition at issue did not entail any interference with the rights guaranteed by Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter and that, even if that it were to do so in relation to Article 7 of the Charter, that interference would not infringe Article 52(1) of the Charter. Accordingly, for the same reasons, the prohibition at issue likewise does not infringe the principles of access to justice, justice and respect for fundamental rights as relied on by the applicants. It is, furthermore, recalled that the argument alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty is, in the context of the present plea, ineffective. 167 The applicants’ fifth argument must, in consequence, be rejected. 168 By their sixth and final argument, the applicants submit that the alleged undermining of the values of the rule of law amounts to a measure which is manifestly inappropriate for the pursuit of the objectives set out by the Council. 169 It is nevertheless apparent from the foregoing that no undermining of the values of the rule of law has been established. 170 The applicants’ sixth argument must therefore be rejected. 171 It follows from the foregoing that the second complaint in the first part of the second plea in law must be rejected. (b) The second part of the second plea, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality 172 The applicants, supported by the Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer and the Ordre des avocats de Genève, claim, in the alternative, that Regulations 2022/1904, 2022/2474 and 2023/427 infringe the principle of proportionality, a general principle of EU law enshrined in Article 5 TEU. In their view, the introduction of a general prohibition on the provision of legal advisory services is not appropriate for achieving the legitimate objectives pursued and goes beyond what is strictly necessary to achieve those objectives. 173 The Council, supported by the Republic of Estonia, the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, disputes the applicants’ arguments. 174 In that regard, the Court recalls that the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of EU law, requires that measures implemented through provisions of EU law be appropriate for attaining the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation at issue and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve them (judgment of 13 March 2012, Melli Bank v Council, C‑380/09 P, EU:C:2012:137, paragraph 52). 175 It should also be noted that, with regard to judicial review of compliance with the principle of proportionality, the EU legislature must be allowed a broad discretion in areas which involve political, economic and social choices on its part, and in which it is called upon to undertake complex assessments. The legality of a measure adopted in those areas can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue (judgments of 28 March 2017, Rosneft, C‑72/15, EU:C:2017:236, paragraph 146, and of 15 February 2023, Belaeronavigatsia v Council, T‑536/21, EU:T:2023:66, paragraph 68). 176 As has been stated in paragraphs 93 to 103 of the present judgment, the prohibition at issue meets, in an appropriate and consistent manner, the objective of further increasing the pressure exerted on the Russian Federation to end its war of aggression against Ukraine and cannot, in any event, be regarded as being manifestly inappropriate having regard to that objective. For that reason alone, it must be found that the prohibition at issue does not infringe Article 5 TEU. 177 In addition and in any event, even if, by the second part of the second plea in law, the applicants are claiming disproportionate undermining of the fundamental role of lawyers in ensuring compliance with and defending the rule of law, it should be noted that that role is not exempt from limitation and may be subject to restrictions justified by objectives of general interest pursued by the European Union, provided that such restrictions do not constitute, in relation to the aim pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very essence of the task entrusted to lawyers in a State governed by the rule of law (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 March 2017, Rosneft, C‑72/15, EU:C:2017:236, paragraph 148). 178 Since the applicants have failed to demonstrate the existence of interference either with the independence of lawyers as recognised for the purposes of the right to an effective remedy or with the values of the rule of law, it is also not established that the prohibition at issue impairs the very essence of the task performed by lawyers in a State governed by the rule of law. 179 Consequently, the second part of the second plea in law is unfounded and must be rejected. 3. The third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty 180 The applicants, supported by the Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer and the Ordre des avocats de Genève, claim that the provisions establishing the prohibition at issue infringe the principle of legal certainty. They are neither clear nor precise and afford no foreseeability as to how they will be applied. 181 First, it is not possible to understand from a combined reading of recital 19 of Regulation 2022/1904 and the provisions of Article 5n(5) and (6) of Regulation No 833/2014, as amended, what services are excluded from the prohibition at issue. 182 Second, the exception relating to consistency with the objectives of Regulations 2022/2474 and 2023/427 and of Regulation No 269/2014, provided for in Article 5n(6) of Regulation No 833/2014, is not sufficiently delimited, since those regulations do not define their objectives. 183 Third, the concept of sole or joint control by a legal person, entity or body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a Member State, a country member of the European Economic Area, Switzerland or a partner country, used in Article 5n(7) of Regulation No 833/2014, is incomprehensible. 184 Fourth, it cannot be understood from the wording of the prohibition at issue whether activities such as legal representation services in pre-litigation procedures, services relating to the divestment from Russia or the wind-down of business activities by undertakings in Russia, the drafting of a share transfer document in relation to the acquisition by an EU entity of its own shares from Russian shareholders, follow-up to a consultation on the basis of an agreement concluded before 7 October 2022, speaking at a conference on legal matters, or organising such a conference where the participants are employees of an entity established in Russia are prohibited or not. 185 The applicants add that the Council has adapted and clarified the scope of the provisions establishing the prohibition at issue, without however remedying the breach of the principle of legal certainty. These are clarifications made after the adoption of the prohibition at issue, the majority of which have not been made public, while the concept of ‘legal advisory services in non-contentious matters’ – which are prohibited – has still not been clearly defined. 186 The Council, supported by the Republic of Estonia, the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, disputes the applicants’ arguments. 187 In that regard, the Court recalls that, according to settled case-law, the principle of legal certainty – which is a general principle of EU law – requires, particularly, that rules of law be clear, precise and predictable in their effects, in particular where they may have negative consequences on individuals and undertakings. A penalty, even of a non-criminal nature, cannot be imposed unless it rests on a clear and unambiguous legal basis. The principle of legal certainty implies, inter alia, that any EU legislation, in particular when it imposes or permits the imposition of penalties, must be clear and precise so that the persons concerned may know without ambiguity what rights and obligations flow from it and may take steps accordingly (see judgment of 16 July 2014, National Iranian Oil Company v Council, T‑578/12, not published, EU:T:2014:678, paragraph 112 and the case-law cited). 188 It is also apparent from the case-law that the existence of vague terms in a provision does not necessarily entail an infringement of Article 7 ECHR and that the fact that a law confers a discretion is not in itself inconsistent with the requirement of foreseeability, provided that the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference. In that connection, apart from the text of the law itself, the case-law takes account of whether the indeterminate notions used have been defined by consistent and published case-law (see judgment of 4 September 2015, NIOC and Others v Council, T‑577/12, not published, EU:T:2015:596, paragraph 135 and the case-law cited). 189 Moreover, the requirement of foreseeability which accompanies the principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis – which requires that legislation must clearly define offences and penalties – does not preclude the law from conferring discretion the scope and manner of exercise of which are indicated with sufficient clarity. Those principles of case-law are also applicable with regard to restrictive measures which, although they are not aimed in principle at penalising infringements, but constitute preventive measures, have a considerable impact on the rights and freedoms of the persons concerned (see judgment of 4 September 2015, NIOC and Others v Council, T‑577/12, not published, EU:T:2015:596, paragraph 136 and the case-law cited). 190 The applicants’ arguments must be examined in the light of those principles. 191 By their first argument, the applicants submit that the wording of recital 19 of Regulation 2022/1904 and of the provisions relating to the prohibition at issue does not make it possible to identify the prohibited legal advisory services. 192 Although recital 19 of Regulation 2022/1904 merely identifies the broad categories of legal advisory services that are subject to the prohibition at issue and those that are not, Article 5n(5) and (6) of Regulation No 833/2014 delimits the prohibition at issue more precisely. 193 In any event, even assuming that some lawyers have been able to follow a strict interpretation of the provisions at issue, by refraining from providing legal advice necessary to pre-empt, anticipate or even prepare judicial or administrative proceedings, it is sufficient to recall that, in any event, as has been explained in response to the first plea in law, the wording of Article 5n of Regulation No 833/2014, and of Article 5n(5) and (6) in particular, enables the applicants to distinguish between those legal advisory services which fall outside the prohibition at issue and those which are subject to it. 194 Accordingly, the applicants’ first argument cannot be upheld. 195 By their second argument, the applicants submit that the requirement laid down in Article 5n(6) of Regulation No 833/2014 that the provision of services must be consistent with the objectives pursued by Regulation No 833/2014 and Regulation No 269/2014 is imprecise. 196 Recital 2 of Regulation No 833/2014 states that the adoption of restrictive measures must make it possible to ‘increas[e] the costs of Russia’s actions to undermine Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence and to promot[e] a peaceful settlement of the crisis’. 197 In addition, recital 3 of Regulation No 269/2014 states that ‘the solution to the crisis should be found through negotiations between the Governments of Ukraine and of the Russian Federation … and that in the absence of results within a limited timeframe the Union will decide on additional measures, such as travel bans, asset freezes and the cancellation of the EU-Russia summit’. Recital 6 recalls that that regulation ‘respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the [Charter] and in particular the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the right to the protection of personal data’. 198 The requirement of consistency with the objectives pursued by Regulation No 833/2014 and Regulation No 269/2014, as it is laid down in Article 5n(6) of Regulation No 833/2014, is therefore intended to ensure that the exception established by Article 5n(6) does not compromise the objective consisting in exerting pressure on the Russian Federation to end its war of aggression against Ukraine, in compliance with the principles guaranteed by the Charter. As the Council observes, that requirement seeks to prevent any misuse of the exception set out in the aforementioned Article 5n(6) and is therefore sufficiently explicit. 199 Accordingly, the applicants’ second argument must be rejected. 200 By their third argument, the applicants submit that the concept of control contained in Article 5n(7) of Regulation No 833/2014, since it encompasses the concepts of sole control and of joint control and is not defined by that regulation, is incomprehensible. 201 However, in relation to restrictive measures, the Council correctly states that the Court of Justice has already held that ‘a company may be classified as a “company owned or controlled by another entity” where the latter [was] in a situation in which it [was] able to influence the decisions of the company concerned, even in the absence of any legal tie between the two economic entities, or any link in terms of ownership or equity participation’ (judgment of 10 September 2019, HTTS v Council, C‑123/18 P, EU:C:2019:694, paragraph 75). 202 Consequently, the applicants’ third argument must be rejected. 203 By their fourth argument, the applicants take the view that the prohibition at issue is vitiated by a lack of precision concerning its scope. 204 No aspect of the alleged lack of precision is however capable of giving rise to a breach of the principle of legal certainty. 205 First of all, as can be seen from paragraph 61 of the present judgment, the wording of Article 5n(5) of Regulation No 833/2014 permits the provision of legal advisory services in the context of pre-litigation procedures. 206 Next, in relation to the divestment from Russia or the wind-down of business activities by undertakings in Russia, it is clear from Article 5n(2) of Regulation No 833/2014 that the provision of legal advice relating to such transactions is prohibited where it is intended for the Russian Government or entities established in Russia. That prohibition may be lifted only under the conditions laid down, first, in Article 5n(7) of Regulation No 833/2014 and, second, in Article 12b(2a) of that regulation. 207 Furthermore, Article 5n(2) of Regulation No 833/2014 prohibits the provision of legal advice relating to a share transfer document for the purpose of and concerning the acquisition by an EU entity of its own shares from current Russian shareholders, to the extent that that advice is intended, directly or indirectly, for the Russian Government or for entities established in Russia. It is in that respect irrelevant that the transaction in question, carried out on the basis of that legal advice, might ultimately and indirectly benefit the Russian Government or entities established in Russia. 208 In addition, in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation 2022/1904, the prohibition at issue entered into force as from 7 October 2022. It follows that lawyers are in principle prohibited from providing legal advice to the Russian Government or to entities established in Russia in the context of follow-up to a consultation, on the basis of a letter of engagement or an agreement concluded before 7 October 2022. That prohibition may be lifted only under the conditions laid down by Article 5n(4) of Regulation No 833/2014, that is to say, for legal advice which has to be provided precisely in order to terminate contracts concluded before 7 October 2022 by the deadline set in that paragraph. 209 Finally, it should be observed that Article 5n(2) of Regulation No 833/2014 prohibits the provision of legal advisory services to the Russian Government or to entities established in Russia, even indirectly. However, that prohibition does not preclude speaking at a conference attended by an employee of the Russian Government or of an entity established in Russia, so long as that speech remains general in nature and does not amount to providing advice based on the interpretation and application of a rule of law to a specific situation or to being of such a nature as to facilitate decision-making by the Russian Government, a Russian entity or a specific category of Russian entities. 210 The third plea in law must therefore be rejected. 211 Since the three pleas in law relied upon by the applicants in support of their action have been rejected, that action must in any event be dismissed with no requirement to rule on its admissibility. IV. Costs 212 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 213 Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to bear their own costs and pay those of the Council, as applied for by the latter. 214 In accordance with Article 138(1) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer, the Ordre des avocats de Genève, the Republic of Estonia, the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy are to bear their own costs. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Grand Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders the Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union; 3. Orders the Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer, the Ordre des avocats de Genève, the Republic of Estonia, the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to bear their own costs. van der Woude Papasavvas da Silva Passos Kornezov Truchot Gervasoni Półtorak Nihoul Öberg Mac Eochaidh Pynnä Martín y Pérez de Nanclares Brkan Zilgalvis Gâlea Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 October 2024. [Signatures] * Language of the case: French. 1 The list of the other applicants is annexed only to the version sent to the parties.