Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Case T‑422/21

Daimler AG

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office

Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber), 7 December 2021

(Action for annulment – EU trade mark – Lack of representation by a lawyer authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the EEA Agreement – Manifest inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Signature by a lawyer – Application signed by a lawyer not 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 – Action for annulment of a decision of an agency of the European Union which was adopted after the end of the transition period laid down in the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union – Application signed by a lawyer authorised to practise before the courts or tribunals of the United Kingdom – Manifest inadmissibility

(Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, Arts 87, 91(1) and (2), 92(1), 93, 95(1) and 97; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, fourth paragraph, and 53)

(see paragraphs 15, 17-25)

Résumé

By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 12 July 2021, Daimler AG brought an action against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 May 2021. Daimler stated that it was represented by two lawyers who were authorised to practise before the courts or tribunals of the United Kingdom.

The withdrawal agreement (
[1](#t-ECR_62021TO0422_RES_EN_01-E0001)
) provides for a transition period which ended on 31 December 2020.

By its order, the General Court dismissed Daimler’s action as manifestly inadmissible. It ruled, for the first time, on the issue of the admissibility of an action which was brought by an applicant which was represented by lawyers who were authorised to practise before the courts or tribunals of the United Kingdom against a decision of a Board of Appeal of EUIPO which had been adopted after the end of the transition period.

Findings of the Court

In the first place, the Court pointed out that only a lawyer authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area may represent or assist a party before the Courts of the European Union. (
[2](#t-ECR_62021TO0422_RES_EN_01-E0002)
) In that regard, the withdrawal agreement provides for various situations in which a lawyer who is authorised to practise before the courts or tribunals of the United Kingdom may represent or assist a party before the Courts of the European Union. (
[3](#t-ECR_62021TO0422_RES_EN_01-E0003)
)

In the second place, the Court held that the present action was not covered by any of the situations set out in the withdrawal agreement, with the result that the applicant’s lawyers could not represent it before the Courts of the European Union.

It pointed out that, since the application had been lodged after the end of the transition period, the provision in the withdrawal agreement relating to proceedings that were pending before the Courts of the European Union before the end of that period was not applicable. Likewise, in the light of the fact that the contested decision had been adopted after the end of the transition period, the provision regarding decisions adopted by institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union before the end of that period also did not apply. (
[4](#t-ECR_62021TO0422_RES_EN_01-E0004)
)

Furthermore, the Court held that the present case did not concern proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations which had been brought by the Commission, (
[5](#t-ECR_62021TO0422_RES_EN_01-E0005)
) an administrative procedure concerning compliance with EU law by the United Kingdom, by persons residing or established there, or concerning compliance with EU law relating to competition, (
[6](#t-ECR_62021TO0422_RES_EN_01-E0006)
) a European Anti-Fraud Office procedure or a State aid procedure. (
[7](#t-ECR_62021TO0422_RES_EN_01-E0007)
) The case was likewise not covered by Article 97 of the withdrawal agreement, because that provision relates solely to representation in ongoing proceedings before EUIPO, and not before the Court.

---

(
[1](#c-ECR_62021TO0422_RES_EN_01-E0001)
) Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community ([OJ 2020 L 29, p. 7](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:L:2020:029:TOC); ‘the withdrawal agreement’).

(
[2](#c-ECR_62021TO0422_RES_EN_01-E0002)
) Fourth paragraph of Article 19, of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

(
[3](#c-ECR_62021TO0422_RES_EN_01-E0003)
) Article 91(1) and (2) of the withdrawal agreement.

(
[4](#c-ECR_62021TO0422_RES_EN_01-E0004)
) Article 91(1) and (2) of the withdrawal agreement, read in conjunction with Article 95(1) of that agreement.

(
[5](#c-ECR_62021TO0422_RES_EN_01-E0005)
) Article 91(1) of the withdrawal agreement, read in conjunction with Article 87 of that agreement.

(
[6](#c-ECR_62021TO0422_RES_EN_01-E0006)
) Article 91(2) of the withdrawal agreement, read in conjunction with Article 92(1) of that agreement.

(
[7](#c-ECR_62021TO0422_RES_EN_01-E0007)
) Article 91(2) of the withdrawal agreement, read in conjunction with Article 93 of that agreement.

[Top](#document1)