This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0423
Case C-423/11 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 2011 by the Republic of Poland against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 May 2011 in Case T-226/10 Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission
Case C-423/11 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 2011 by the Republic of Poland against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 May 2011 in Case T-226/10 Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission
Case C-423/11 P: Appeal brought on 11 August 2011 by the Republic of Poland against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 May 2011 in Case T-226/10 Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission
SL C 311, 22.10.2011, p. 22–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.10.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 311/22 |
Appeal brought on 11 August 2011 by the Republic of Poland against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 May 2011 in Case T-226/10 Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej v Commission
(Case C-423/11 P)
2011/C 311/38
Language of the case: Polish
Parties
Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, Agent)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
Form of order sought
|
— |
set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court of the European Union of 23 May 2011 in Case T-226/10. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The ground given for the dismissal of the a ction was the employment relationship linking the legal advisers representing the Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej (President of the Electronic Communications Authority) with that authority, which, in the view of the General Court, made it impossible for those legal advisers to represent the applicant before the General Court. The Government of the Republic of Poland sets out the following submissions challenging the order under appeal:
|
|
First, it is submitted, there has been a breach of the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice by reason of misinterpretation thereof. The provisions of European Union law do not harmonise the permissible forms in which legal services may be provided. Nor does Article 19 of the Statute introduce restrictions in this area, referring instead directly to national provisions. In the Republic of Poland’s view, Article 19 of the Statute does not provide any basis for generally and arbitrarily depriving legal advisers who provide legal assistance pursuant to their contract of employment of their right to represent parties before the Court of Justice, inasmuch as the provisions of Polish law guarantee their full independence. |
|
|
Second, it is submitted that there has been an infringement of the principle of proportionality referred to in Article 5(4) TEU. In the view of the Government of the Republic of Poland, the exclusion of the possibility for a party to be represented by a legal adviser who is linked to that party by an employment relationship goes beyond what is necessary in order to guarantee that legal services are provided to a party by an independent lawyer. Less restrictive means, in material and formal terms, exist by which that objective can be achieved, in particular national rules which concern the principles governing the exercise of a profession and professional deontology. |
|
|
Third, it is submitted that there has been a procedural infringement by reason of the absence of an appropriate statement of reasons. The Government of the Republic of Poland takes the view that the General Court did not set out an adequate statement of reasons for the order in Case T-226/10, and in particular did not address the specific aspects of the legal relationship linking the legal advisers to the Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej. |