- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-739/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — VK v An Bord Pleanála (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lawyers’ freedom to provide services — Directive 77/249/EEC — Article 5 — Obligation for a visiting lawyer representing a client in domestic legal proceedings to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question — Limits)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0739
62019CA0739
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 182/14
(Case C-739/19)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Lawyers’ freedom to provide services - Directive 77/249/EEC - Article 5 - Obligation for a visiting lawyer representing a client in domestic legal proceedings to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question - Limits)
(2021/C 182/19)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: VK
Defendant: An Bord Pleanála
Interested parties: The General Council of the Bar of Ireland, The Law Society of Ireland and the Attorney General
Operative part of the judgment
Article 5 of Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services must be interpreted as meaning that:
—it does not preclude, as such, in the light of the objective of the proper administration of justice, a lawyer, provider of representation services in respect of his or her client, from being required to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question and who would be responsible, if necessary, towards that judicial authority, under a system placing lawyers under ethical and procedural obligations such as that of submitting to the judicial authority in question any legal element, whether legislative or case-law-based, for the purposes of the proper course of the procedure, from which the litigant is exempt if he or she decides to conduct his or her own defence;
—it does not preclude, as such, in the light of the objective of the proper administration of justice, a lawyer, provider of representation services in respect of his or her client, from being required to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question and who would be responsible, if necessary, towards that judicial authority, under a system placing lawyers under ethical and procedural obligations such as that of submitting to the judicial authority in question any legal element, whether legislative or case-law-based, for the purposes of the proper course of the procedure, from which the litigant is exempt if he or she decides to conduct his or her own defence;
—a general obligation to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question not allowing account to be taken of the experience of the visiting lawyer would go beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective of the proper administration of justice.
(1) OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.