Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2013 — ClientEarth v Council

(Case C‑573/11 P)

‛Appeal — Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party — Action for annulment manifestly inadmissible — Grounds of the appeal manifestly unfounded’

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer — Applicant association represented by one of its administrators — Breach of the independence requirement — Appeal manifestly unfounded (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see paras 8, 11-19)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadmissibility of the action before the General Court — Public policy plea based on the applicant’s change of representative — Considered of Court’s own motion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44) (see paras 20, 21)

3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer — Rectification — Conditions — Exhaustive nature of the conditions listed in the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Designation of a new lawyer — Not included (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(3) to (6)) (see paras 22, 23)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Grounds of judgment vitiated by a breach of EU law — Operative part well founded for other legal reasons — Rejection (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(3) to (6)) (see para. 24)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2011 in Case T‑452/10 ClientEarth v Council, by which the General Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible an action seeking the annulment of the decision of the Council of 26 July 2010 refusing to allow the applicant full access to an opinion drafted by the Council Legal Service (document No 6865/09) regarding a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning public access to documents of the European Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. ClientEarth is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2013 — ClientEarth v Council

(Case C‑573/11 P)

‛Appeal — Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party — Action for annulment manifestly inadmissible — Grounds of the appeal manifestly unfounded’

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer — Applicant association represented by one of its administrators — Breach of the independence requirement — Appeal manifestly unfounded (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see paras 8, 11-19)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadmissibility of the action before the General Court — Public policy plea based on the applicant’s change of representative — Considered of Court’s own motion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44) (see paras 20, 21)

3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application lodged without the assistance of a lawyer — Rectification — Conditions — Exhaustive nature of the conditions listed in the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Designation of a new lawyer — Not included (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(3) to (6)) (see paras 22, 23)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Grounds of judgment vitiated by a breach of EU law — Operative part well founded for other legal reasons — Rejection (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(3) to (6)) (see para. 24)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2011 in Case T‑452/10 ClientEarth v Council, by which the General Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible an action seeking the annulment of the decision of the Council of 26 July 2010 refusing to allow the applicant full access to an opinion drafted by the Council Legal Service (document No 6865/09) regarding a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning public access to documents of the European Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.