Case C-739/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — VK v An Bord Pleanála (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lawyers’ freedom to provide services — Directive 77/249/EEC — Article 5 — Obligation for a visiting lawyer representing a client in domestic legal proceedings to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question — Limits)
Date: 2021-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, judicial proceedings, lawyer








C_2021182EN.01001401.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/14






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — VK v An Bord Pleanála
(Case C-739/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Lawyers’ freedom to provide services - Directive 77/249/EEC - Article 5 - Obligation for a visiting lawyer representing a client in domestic legal proceedings to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question - Limits)
(2021/C 182/19)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VK

Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

Interested parties: The General Council of the Bar of Ireland, The Law Society of Ireland and the Attorney General

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services must be interpreted as meaning that:






—


it does not preclude, as such, in the light of the objective of the proper administration of justice, a lawyer, provider of representation services in respect of his or her client, from being required to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question and who would be responsible, if necessary, towards that judicial authority, under a system placing lawyers under ethical and procedural obligations such as that of submitting to the judicial authority in question any legal element, whether legislative or case-law-based, for the purposes of the proper course of the procedure, from which the litigant is exempt if he or she decides to conduct his or her own defence;










—


it does not preclude, as such, in the light of the objective of the proper administration of justice, a lawyer, provider of representation services in respect of his or her client, from being required to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question and who would be responsible, if necessary, towards that judicial authority, under a system placing lawyers under ethical and procedural obligations such as that of submitting to the judicial authority in question any legal element, whether legislative or case-law-based, for the purposes of the proper course of the procedure, from which the litigant is exempt if he or she decides to conduct his or her own defence;










—


a general obligation to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question not allowing account to be taken of the experience of the visiting lawyer would go beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective of the proper administration of justice.






(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.