Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 26.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/9 |

---

Appeal brought on 20 December 2022 by Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2022 in Case T-389/22, Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-776/22 P)

(2023/C 223/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante (represented by: A. Clemente, L. Cascone, A. Marega, F. de Filippis, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| (1) | primarily — upholding the first and/or second ground of appeal of the present proceedings — annul the order under appeal, find that the legal representation of the appellant partnership by the lawyers instructed at the stage of the proceedings before the General Court is valid, and therefore refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the merits; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| (2) | in the alternative — upholding the third ground of appeal of the present proceedings — annul the order, find that the Associazione Ughi e Nunziante — Studio Legale is entitled to continue with the proceedings with the assistance of a lawyer from outside the appellant professional partnership and therefore refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the merits; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| (3) | order EUIPO to pay the costs and expenses of the present appeal proceedings. |

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant raises three grounds of appeal

First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Articles 119 and 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

The appellant claims that the General Court infringed the obligation to state reasons, having initially recalled the case-law of the Court regarding so-called ‘self-representation’, and subsequently moved on to the entirely different matter of the independence of lawyers.

The appellant submits that the General Court did not provide any arguments to justify the applicability of the requirement of independence of the lawyers where the appellant is a law firm formed as a partnership, or to justify its position that the mere fact that the lawyers who made the application are partners of the partnership is such as to exclude their independence.

Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement and/or misapplication of Article 51 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The appellant claims that it duly filed all the documentation required under Article 51(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, fully confirming that the lawyers are authorised to provide legal representation in Italy; thus, in the appellant’s view, it follows that there was no infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute, as alleged.

As far as the alleged infringement of the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute is concerned, the interpretation of the requirement that lawyers be independent was the subject of various recent rulings of the Court of Justice, from which the order under appeal deviated. In the present case, in the appellants view, there is no scenario in which the members of the law firm would not be able to perform their work to the best of their ability and in the interests of the client.

Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Articles 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and, possibly, of Article 51(4) and Article 55(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

The appellant claims that, having identified the alleged lack of independence, the General Court merely found that there are no remedies expressly provided for in the Rules of Procedure of the General Court for such a defect and, therefore, it automatically declared the appeal inadmissible.

The appellant submits that the General Court failed to take into account the fact that that requirement of independence was established by case-law; the remedy is not expressly provided for, for the simple fact that the alleged requirement was not expressly provided for by any legislation. In the appellant’s view, the General Court’s formalistic interpretation caused considerable and irreversible harm to its rights, in infringement of Articles 47 and 52 of the Charter.

Appeal allowed to proceed

By order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 8 May 2023, the appeal was allowed to proceed in part. The response shall relate to the second and third grounds of appeal.

---

[Top](#document1)