On 2 October 2024, the General Court of the EU ruled in three cases in favour of banning the provision of legal advice to the Russian government and entities established in Russia, by rejecting appeals filed in December 2022 notably by the Paris Bar[1], the Dutch Bar Association of the Brussels[2] and the French lawyers union ACE – Avocats, ensemble[3], with the support of the Geneva Bar Association and the German Bar Association (Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer).

The legal issue examined by the General Court relates to the EU sanctions against Russia adopted in response to the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. The EU Council adopted as from October 2022 an unprecedented ban for EU-based lawyers on providing legal advisory services to the Russian government and to legal persons, entities or bodies established in Russia[4].

The applicants appealed to annul[5] such ban[6], arguing that this measure violates the fundamental right of access to legal advice from a lawyer, interferes with the professional secrecy and the independence of lawyers, as well as the values of the rule of law. They further claimed that the general prohibition does not respect the principles of proportionality and legal certainty.

The Court rejected all three appeals, after the hearing held on 12 March 2024 in Luxembourg[7].

After recalling that all persons are recognised by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as having a right to effective judicial protection, which includes the right to be advised and represented by a lawyer in the context of existing or probable litigation, the Court ruled that that right is not called into question by the ban, given that the ban does not concern legal advisory services provided in connection with judicial, administrative or arbitral proceedings and only applies to legal advice that has no link with judicial proceedings. The Court also emphasised that legal advice provided to natural persons does not fall within the scope of the prohibition.

The EU regulations provide for exemptions which enable the competent authorities to lift the prohibition in certain specifically identified situations and those authorities have discretion as to the manner in which an application for exemption must be set out, lodged and processed. The applicants argued that the authorisation procedures laid down by the exemption provisions interfere with the professional secrecy of lawyers, since a lawyer who wishes to apply for authorisation must disclose to the competent authority details relating to the potential client and the nature of the advice sought. In response, the Court held that the derogations do not, in themselves, entail interference with the protection of the professional secrecy of lawyers but encouraged Member States, when defining the arrangements for implementing the exemption procedures, to ensure respect for the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Moreover, the Court emphasized the importance of the independence of lawyers to ensure the right to an effective remedy in contexts where there is a link with judicial proceedings. However, since the ban does not apply to legal advisory services provided by a lawyer related to litigation, the Court considers the prohibition not to interfere with the principle of lawyers’ independence.

Finally, the Court ruled that the prohibition meets, in an appropriate and consistent manner, the objective of further increasing the pressure exerted on the Russian Federation to end its war of aggression against Ukraine and cannot, in any event, be regarded as being manifestly inappropriate having regard to that objective. According to the Court, the ban, as delimited by the exception and exemption provisions, pursues objectives of general interest, without impairing the very essence of the fundamental role of lawyers in a democratic society.

This decision is subject to appeal before the EU Court of Justice (within two months and ten days of notification of the decision). The lawyer representing the Geneva Bar in these proceedings already announced that all possibilities to appeal the decision of the Grand Court were considered[8].

[1]             Ordre des avocats à la cour de Paris and Couturier v Council  (T-798/22 – available here).

[2]             Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v Council  (T-797/22 – available here).

[3]             ACE v Council  (T-828/22 – available here).

[4]             The EU Council introduced that prohibition by 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, Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2474 of 16 December 2022 amending Regulation No 833/2014 and Council Regulation (EU) 2023/427 of 25 February 2023 amending Regulation No 833/2014. 

[5]             An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are contrary to European Union law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain conditions, bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well founded, the act is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the act.

[6]             Claimants sought specifically the annulment of (i) 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), to the extent that it replaces and amends 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) in so far as concerns legal advisory services; (ii) Article 1(13) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/2474 of 16 December 2022 amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ 2022 L 322I, p. 1), to the extent that it replaces and amends Article 5n(2) and (4) to (11) of Regulation No 833/2014 in so far as concerns legal advisory services; and (iii) Article 1(13) of Council Regulation (EU) 2023/427 of 25 February 2023 amending Regulation No 833/2014 (OJ 2023 L 59I, p. 6), to the extent that it inserts Article 12b(2a) into Regulation No 833/2014 in so far as concerns legal advisory services.

[7]             The official press release is available here.

[8]             The press release from the Geneva Bar is available here.