Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Ordonnance du Tribunal

**Case T-445/04**

**Energy Technologies ET SA**

**v**

**Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

(Community trade mark – Representation by a lawyer – Manifest inadmissibility)

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 28 February 2005

Summary of the Order

*Procedure – Originating application – Formal requirements – Signature by a lawyer – Applicant represented by a person who
has a legal qualification but is not a lawyer – Inadmissible*

*(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, fourth para.)*

It is clear from the fourth paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to proceedings
before the Court of First Instance by virtue of Article 53 of that Statute, that two cumulative conditions must be satisfied
in order for a person to be able validly to represent parties other than Member States and Community institutions before the
Community Courts: that person must be a lawyer and must be 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. Those requirements are essential formal rules and failure
to comply with them will result in the action being inadmissible.

An application lodged by a non-privileged party and signed by a person holding a legal qualification who, although able to
represent parties in certain actions before the courts and tribunals of a Member State, does not satisfy all of the conditions
laid down by the relevant national legislation for recognition as a lawyer and is accordingly not a lawyer for the purposes
of Article 19 of the Statute is therefore inadmissible.

(see paras 7, 9-10)

  
   
   

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) 28 February 2005[(1)](#Footnote1)
(Community trade mark – Representation by a lawyer – Manifest inadmissibility)In Case T-445/04,**Energy Technologies ET S.A.**, established in Fribourg (Switzerland), represented by A. Boman,

applicant,

v

**Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM),**

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being**Aparellaje eléctrico, SL**, established in Hospitalet de Llobregat (Spain),ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
of 7 July 2004 (Case R 366/2002‑4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark UNEX as a Community trade mark,  
  

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE  
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber)

  
  
composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges,Registrar: H. Jung,

makes the present

  
  

### Order

  
  
  
**: **Facts and procedure****

1
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 10 November 2004, the applicant brought an action
against the decision of 7 July 2004 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
(Case R 366/2002‑4).

2
The application states that the applicant is represented by Ms Angela Boman, Attorney at Law. This application is accompanied
by an attestation from the President of the Administrative Court of the Region of Gothenburg (Sweden) certifying that Ms Boman
is an Attorney at Law authorised to represent clients and to act on her own before all courts in Sweden. The application is
signed by Ms Boman.

3
On 3 December 2004 the Court of First Instance, pursuant to Article 44(6) of its Rules of Procedure, requested Ms Boman to
lodge evidence that, as required by Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, she is authorised to practise as a
lawyer before a court of a Member State, that is to say, that she is authorised, in Sweden, to practise as an *advokat*. In response to this request, Ms Boman stated on 10 December 2004 that, although she was not a member of the Swedish Bar
(*Advokatsamfundet*), she was authorised to practise before the Swedish courts inasmuch as she held a Master of Laws diploma (*juris kandidatexamen*) and had completed a two-year training period within the Swedish court system (*notarietjänstgöring*).  
****Law****

4
Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that, where an action brought before the Court
is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the Court may, by reasoned order, without taking further
steps in the proceedings, give a decision on the action.

5
In the present case the Court decides, pursuant to that article, to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.

6
Pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to proceedings before
the Court of First Instance by virtue of Article 53 of that Statute, non-privileged parties must be represented before the
Community Courts by a lawyer, that is to say, in the Swedish version, by an *advokat.* According to Swedish legislation, the title of ‘*advokat*’ is reserved to persons who have a Masters qualification in law and have been admitted to the Bar.

7
Moreover, it is clear from the fourth paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that two cumulative conditions
must be satisfied in order for a person to be able validly to represent parties other than Member States and Community institutions
before the Community Courts: that person must be a lawyer (*advokat,* according to the Swedish version) and he must be authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State
which is a party to the EEA Agreement. Those requirements are essential formal rules and failure to comply with them will
result in the action being inadmissible.

8
The reason for the requirement imposed by Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice is that a lawyer is regarded as
a collaborator in the administration of justice, required to provide, in full independence, and in the overriding interests
of that cause, such legal assistance as the client requires. The counterpart of that protection lies in the professional discipline
laid down and enforced in the general interest by the institutions endowed with the requisite powers for that purpose. Such
a conception reflects the legal traditions common to the Member States and is also to be found in the legal order of the Community
(see, by way of analogy, the judgment in Case 155/79 *AM & S*  v *Commission* [1982] ECR 1575, paragraph 24).

9
As Ms Boman is not registered as a member of the Bar, she is not a lawyer (*advokat*) within the terms of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. Consequently, even though she may, according to Swedish
law, be able to represent parties in actions before the Swedish courts, she does not satisfy the first of the two cumulative
conditions set out in the fourth paragraph of Article 19 and is for that reason not authorised to represent the applicant
before the Court of First Instance.

10
It follows that the present application must be dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible, without its being necessary to
serve it on the defendant. **Costs**

11
As the present order has been adopted before the application was notified to the defendant and before the defendant was able
to incur costs, it suffices to decide that the applicant shall bear its own costs, in accordance with Article 87(1) of the
Rules of Procedure.

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)
hereby orders:****1.
:   The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.**

**2.
:   The applicant shall bear its own costs.****Luxembourg, 28 February 2005.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| H. Jung | H. Legal |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Registrar | President |

---

[1](#Footref1) –
:   Language of the case: English.

[Top](#document1)