13

The General Court then examined the admissibility of the application in the light of the provisions of the Statute of the Court of Justice relating to the requirements for representation of the parties before it and it held as follows in paragraphs 16 to 23 of the contested order: ‘16 According to settled case-law, it is apparent … in particular from the use of the term ‘represented’ in the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, that, in order to bring an action before the General Court, a party, within the meaning of that article, is not permitted to act itself but must use the services of a third person authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA)(order of 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07 EREF v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 14 and the case-law cited). 17 That requirement to use a third person is based on a view of the lawyer’s role as collaborating in the administration of justice and as being required to provide, in full independence and in the overriding interests of that cause, such legal assistance as the client needs. That conception reflects legal traditions common to the Member States and is also to be found in the Union legal order, as is precisely demonstrated by Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice (order in EREF v Commission, paragraph 15). 18 In the present case, it should be noted from the outset that the reference made by the applicant to the obligations of independence flowing from the professional rules regulating the profession of legal adviser is not enough in itself to demonstrate that Ms Gruszecka and Ms Pawłowska were entitled to represent the applicant before the General Court. Indeed, 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 (see, to that effect, Case C-550/07 P Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission and Others [2010] ECR I-8301, paragraphs 44 and 45, and the order in Joined Cases C-74/10 P and C-75/10 P EREF v Commission, paragraph 53). 19 Secondly, it must be stated that the applicant admits that Ms Gruszecka and Ms Pawłowska are bound by an employment relationship with UKE. It states, in this respect, that the Director General of the UKE determines “[their] recruitment, [their] working conditions and the termination of [their] employment relationship”. 20 Finally, again according to the applicant, the UKE’s mission is to serve its Chairman in the statutory tasks entrusted to it. 21 Accordingly, even if a clear distinction could be made between the Chairman of the UKE and the UKE and even if there is no formal employment relationship between the applicant and its legal advisers, the fact remains that the requirements specified by the case-law cited at paragraphs 16 and 17 above are not met in the present case. Indeed, the existence of a subordinate relationship within the UKE – even if only to its Director General – when their sole function is to assist the applicant, implies a degree of independence less than that of a legal adviser or a lawyer practising in a firm that is external to their client. 22 That finding is not invalidated by the applicant’s citations of Polish legislation regulating the profession of legal adviser. As pointed out in paragraph 18 above, professional discipline is not enough in itself to demonstrate that the requirement of independence is satisfied. Furthermore, according to case-law, the provisions concerning the representation of non-privileged parties before the Court must be interpreted, as far as possible, independently and without reference to national law (order in EREF v Commission, paragraph 16). 23 It follows from the above that the employment relationship linking Ms Gruszecka and Ms Pawłowska to the UKE is not compatible with the representation of the applicant before the Court.’