The Concept of a ‘Lawyer’ as an Autonomous Concept of European Union Law and the Conditions of Representation before the Union Courts From the Perspective of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection
The Concept of a ‘Lawyer’ as an Autonomous Concept of European Union Law and the Conditions of Representation before the Union Courts From the Perspective of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection

Summary/Abstract: The paper aims to analyze the extent to which the European Union's procedural rules regarding the representation of individuals (natural and legal persons) in direct actions before the courts of the Union, as they have been interpreted in European case law, respect the substance of the right of access to a court established in Article 47, first paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In this regard, by analyzing the case law of the Union courts regarding the conditions of representation of the non-privileged applicants (the strict requirement regarding the "independence" of the lawyer, who must be a "third party" in relation to the party he represents), as well as the consequences that the case-law gives for not complying with this requirement, the paper concludes in the sense that it does not comply with the standards of effective judicial protection that the Court of Justice of the European Union has set for the Member States and which should also guide its activity. A case currently on the agenda of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Uniwersytet Wrocławski (C-515/17 P and C-561/17 P) and on which it is to rule in the Grand Chamber, may be the perfect opportunity to bring certain clarifications, all the more so as in his Opinion delivered on September 24, 2019 in this case, Advocate General Michal Bobek offers strong arguments in favor of a more relaxed interpretation of the condition of representation by "lawyer" in litigation before the courts of the Union. If these are to be followed by the Court, we could attend a radical reconsideration of the Union court's traditional stance on the issue.

• Details
• Contents