Provisional text

1 August 2025 (*)

( Appeal – Application to intervene – Professional association – Interest in the result of the case – Granted )

In Case C‑865/24 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 12 December 2024,

Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles,

Orde van Vlaamse Balies,

Bernard Derveaux,

represented by P. de Bandt and T. Ghysels, avocats,

Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles, established in Brussels, and the other appellants whose names appear in the annex, represented by T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, avocats,

appellants,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

Maurice Krings,

applicant at first instance,

Council of the European Union,

represented by S. Lejeune and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents,

defendant at first instance,

Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer,

established in Berlin (Germany), represented by J.-P. Buyle, avocat, and D. van Gerven, advocaat,

Ordre des avocats de Genève,

established in Geneva (Switzerland), represented by B. Gentil and F. Zimeray, avocats,

Republic of Estonia,

European Commission,

represented by M. Carpus-Carcea and C. Georgieva and C. Giolito and H. Krämer, acting as Agents,

High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

represented by M. Almeida Veiga and L. Havas and F. Hoffmeister, acting as Agents,

interveners at first instance,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,

having regard to the proposal of R. Frendo, Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Advocate General, L. Medina,

makes the following

By their appeal, the Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles (Dutch Bar Association of Brussels), the Orde van Vlaamse Balies (Flemish Bar Association), Bernard Derveaux, the Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles (French Bar Association of Brussels) and the other appellants, whose names are set out in the annex, seek to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 October 2024, Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles and Others v Council (T‑797/22, EU:T:2024:670; ‘the judgment under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed their action for annulment:

–of Article 1(12) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 of 6 October 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 259I, p. 3), in so far as it replaces Article 5n(2) and (4) to (12) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as regards legal advisory services;

–of Article 1(13) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/2474 of 16 December 2022 amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ 2022 L 322I, p. 1), in so far as it replaces Article 5n(2) and (4) to (11) of Regulation No 833/2014 as regards legal advisory services, and

–Article 1(13) of Council Regulation (EU) 2023/427 of 25 February 2023 amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ 2023 L 59I, p. 6), in so far as it inserts Article 12b(2a) into Regulation No 833/2014 as regards legal advisory services.

By a document lodged at the Court Registry on 24 March 2025, the Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg (‘the OBL’) applied, on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, for leave to intervene in the present case in support of the form of order sought by the appellants.

That application was served on the parties by the Registrar of the Court in accordance with Article 131(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to the appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 190(1) thereof.

The Council of the European Union and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy submitted their observations on that application within the time limit set, without raising any objections to it.

The application to intervene

Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court, other than a case between Member States, between institutions of the European Union or between those States, on the one hand, and such institutions, on the other, may intervene in that case.

According to settled case-law, the concept of an ‘interest in the result of a case’, within the meaning of that provision, must be defined in the light of the subject matter of the dispute and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the forms of order sought, and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law or arguments raised. The words ‘result of a case’ refer to the final decision sought, as set out in the operative part of the future judgment or order (order of the President of the Court of 19 December 2024, SRB v Dexia, C‑454/24 P, EU:C:2024:1062, paragraph 6 and the case-law cited).

In that regard, it must, in particular, be ascertained, whether the applicant for leave to intervene is directly affected by the contested measure and whether its interest in the result of the case is established. In principle, an interest in the result of the case can be considered to be sufficiently direct only to the extent to which that result is likely to alter the legal position of the person seeking leave to intervene (order of the President of the Court of 19 December 2024, SRB v Dexia, C‑454/24 P, EU:C:2024:1062, paragraph 7 and the case-law cited).

However, it is also settled case-law that a representative professional association, whose objective is to protect the interests of its members may be granted leave to intervene where the case raises questions of principle which are liable to affect those interests Therefore, the requirement that such an association has a direct, existing interest in the result of a case must be found to be fulfilled where that association establishes that it is in such a situation, irrespective of whether the result of the case is likely to alter the legal position of the association as such (order of the President of the Court of 19 December 2024, SRB v Dexia, C‑454/24 P, EU:C:2024:1062, paragraph 8 and the case-law cited).

Indeed, such a broad interpretation of the right to intervene in favour of representative professional associations is intended to facilitate assessment of the context of such cases submitted to the EU Courts while avoiding multiple individual interventions which would compromise the efficiency and the proper course of the procedure. However, unlike natural and legal persons acting on their own behalf, representative professional associations are likely to apply for leave to intervene in a case before the Court not in order to defend individual interests but to defend the collective interests of their members. Intervention by such an association offers an overall perspective of those collective interests, which are affected by a question of principle on which the result of the case depends, and is, accordingly, of such a nature as to enable the Court better to assess the context in which a case is submitted to it (order of the President of the Court of 19 December 2024, SRB v Dexia, C‑454/24 P, EU:C:2024:1062, paragraph 9 and the case-law cited).

Thus, a professional association may be granted leave to intervene in a case if, (i) it represents a significant number of undertakings active in the sector concerned, (ii) its objects include the protection of the interests of its members, (iii) the case may raise questions of principle affecting the functioning of the sector concerned and, therefore, (iv) the interests of its members may be affected significantly by the judgment to be given (order of the President of the Court of 19 December 2024, SRB v Dexia, C‑454/24 P, EU:C:2024:1062, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited).

It is in the light of those conditions that the merits of the OBL’s application for leave to intervene must be examined.

As regards, in the first place, the condition relating to representativeness, the OBL states in the application for leave to intervene that it comprises 3 665 lawyers practising their profession in the judicial district of Luxembourg (Luxembourg).

Furthermore, it follows from Articles 5 and 7 and Article 39(1) of the loi du 10 août 1991 sur la profession d’avocat (Law of 10 August 1991 on the profession of lawyer) (Mémorial A 1991, p. 1110), referred to in this application for leave to intervene and produced with it, that no one may practise the profession of lawyer unless he or she is entered on the register of one of the Bar Associations established in Luxembourg, namely that of the district of Luxembourg or that of the district of Diekirch (Luxembourg).

It follows that the OBL is representative of lawyers practising in the district of Luxembourg.

In that regard, it should be recalled that the organisation of the professional associations to which lawyers are required to belong in order to practise their profession varies from one Member State to another.

A requirement that a professional association should represent all lawyers in a Member State in order to satisfy the condition of representativeness resulting from the case-law referred to in paragraphs 8 and 10 of this order would be liable to give rise to differential treatment of lawyers, depending on whether they practise their profession in a Member State in which there is either a single national professional association or several local associations.

Thus, a local professional association, to which persons established in a part of the territory of a Member State are obliged to belong in order to practise their profession, must be regarded as representative.

Consequently, in view of the fact that the OBL comprises all lawyers practising in a part of Luxembourg, it can be considered to be a representative professional association.

In the second place, as regards the condition relating to the protection of the interests of its members, it follows from Article 23 of the Law of 10 August 1991 on the profession of lawyer, relied on by the OBL, that its President may, whenever the protection of, inter alia, a lawyer so requires, take any precautionary measures that prudence requires and refer the matter to the competent judicial bodies in order to obtain an order for the measures that he or she considers necessary or useful. It may therefore be considered that the OBL is a representative association, one of whose objects is the protection of the interests of its members.

In the third place, the third and fourth conditions referred to in paragraph 10 of this order must be considered together and therefore it must be ascertained whether the case may raise questions of principle affecting the functioning of the sector concerned and whether, as a result, the interests of the members of the professional association at issue may be affected to a significant extent by the judgment to be delivered.

The OBL submits, in essence, that the provisions whose validity was confirmed by the judgment under appeal entail considerable restrictions on access to certain legal advisory services for the Russian Government and for legal persons, entities or bodies established in Russia. Those restrictions raise questions relating to the right to be advised by a lawyer, to legal professional privilege and to the role of lawyers in a democracy. Consequently, it is the legal profession as a whole and throughout the territory of the European Union, including Luxembourg, which is affected by those provisions. In the judgment under appeal, the General Court ruled on questions relating, inter alia, to the scope of the protection of professional secrecy arising from Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and to the scope of the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial enshrined in Article 47 thereof.

It should be noted that the present appeal, by which the appellants seek to have the judgment under appeal set aside, raises questions of principle concerning the conditions governing the practice of the profession of lawyer throughout the territory of the European Union, including in the district of Luxembourg corresponding to the competence of the OBL, and that the judgment to be delivered may significantly affect the interests of its members.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is appropriate to grant the OBL leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the appellants.

The procedural rights of the intervener

The OBL is, pursuant to Article 131(3) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 190(1) thereof, entitled to receive a copy of every procedural document served on the parties, unless any party requests that certain documents be excluded from such communication.

Since the application to intervene was lodged within the period laid down in Article 190(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the OBL may submit, pursuant to Article 132(1) of those rules, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 190(1) thereof, a statement in intervention within one month of the communication referred to in the preceding paragraph, extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days provided for in Article 51 of those rules.

Furthermore, the OBL may submit oral observations if a hearing is organised.

Costs

Pursuant to Article 137(1) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the judgment or order which closes the proceedings.

In the present case, since the OBL’s application to intervene has been granted, the costs relating to its intervention must be reserved.

On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:

1.The Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg is granted leave to intervene in Case C‑865/24 P in support of the form of order sought by the appellants.

2.A copy of every procedural document shall be served on the Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg by the Registrar.

3.The Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg shall have one month, extended on account of distance by a single period of ten days, from the date of service referred to in point 2 of this operative part to submit a statement in intervention.

4.The costs relating to the intervention by the Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg are reserved.

[Signatures]

Annex

Ordre des barreaux francophones and germanophones de Belgique, established in Brussels,

Marie Dupont,

residing in Horion-Hozémont (Belgium),

Stéphane Gothot,

residing in Liège (Belgium),

Emmanuel Plasschaert,

residing in Brussels,

Pierre Sculier,

residing in Brussels,

Xavier Van Gils,

residing in Villers-la-Ville (Belgium).

—

Language of the case: French.