Appeal brought on 10 August 2011 by the Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej against the order made by the General Court (Seventh Chamber) on 23 May 2011 in Case T-226/10 Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission

(Case C-422/11 P)

2011/C 311/37

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (represented by: D. Dziedzic-Chojnacka, D. Pawłowska)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The reason for dismissal of the action was the employment relationship between the lawyers representing the Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (President of the Office for Electronic Communications) and the Office for Electronic Communications, which, according to the General Court, precludes those lawyers from representing the applicant before it.

The Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej puts forward the following pleas in law in challenging the contested order.

First, the General Court infringed the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 53 of the Statute, and also in conjunction with the sixth paragraph of Article 254 TFEU and Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (‘the Rules of Procedure’), because it misinterpreted the first-named provision and held that it does not cover lawyers employed under an employment contract concluded with a party to proceedings before the General Court.

Second, the General Court infringed Article 67(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, because it failed to respect the different legal system and legal tradition of a Member State and it dismissed the action on the basis of finding that lawyers in an employment relationship have a lesser degree of independence than lawyers pursuing their activities in chambers independent of the client.

Third, the General Court infringed Article 5(1) and (2) TEU, in conjunction with Article 4(1) TEU and in conjunction with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, by holding that the provisions of the Treaty permit differentiation as to the scope of the rights of lawyers in relation to representation before the General Court although the law of the Member State does not provide for such differentiation and competence in this area has not been accorded to the European Union by the Treaties.

Fourth, the General Court infringed Article 5(4) TEU, in conjunction with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, by accepting that it is necessary, in order to achieve objectives of the Treaties, not to grant lawyers in an employment relationship the right to represent a party in proceedings before the General Court.

Fifth, the General Court committed a procedural infringement because the reasons stated in the contested order are inadequate.