On October 2, the EU General Court issued three significant rulings concerning the prohibition of providing legal advisory services to the Russian Government and entities established in Russia. The decisions rejected the claims brought by various legal orders, upholding the validity of the ban and underscoring the balance between the EU general interests and the fundamental rights of legal professionals. The rulings mark a critical moment in the enforcement of sanctions against Russia.
The three cases sought to annul the prohibition, arguing that the measure violated several key principles of EU law. Specifically, the claimants argued that the prohibition lacks sufficient justification, providing inadequate reasoning for such a broad restriction. The measures also violate fundamental rights to legal services and professional privilege and undermine the independence of lawyers. Additionally, the restrictions are disproportionate and create legal uncertainties, threatening the principles of the rule of law. The General Court clarified that the ban does not apply to legal services connected to judicial, administrative, or arbitral proceedings. This means that lawyers are still permitted to offer representation in these contexts without running into restrictions. The prohibition instead targets legal advisory services unrelated to formal legal disputes, such as those involving commercial transactions, contract negotiations, or other forms of non-contentious legal assistance.
This distinction is essential: the Court explained that the core of the ban addresses advisory activities that could potentially facilitate the functioning of Russian institutions or private entities without any direct connection to judicial proceedings. As such, legal representation in administrative or judicial matters remains safeguarded, preserving the fundamental right of access to justice.
Another key aspect of the ruling is that legal services provided to natural persons are exempt from the prohibition. In this respect, the Court aimed to limit the impact of the sanctions, ensuring they remain proportionate. The Court also stressed that, while the ban limits some of the functions of legal professionals, such limitations are justified by the broader objective of the EU to ensure the effectiveness of its restrictive measures against Russia. In essence, while lawyers play a fundamental role in upholding the rule of law, this role may be subject to restrictions provided that these do not impair their independence in matters related to legal defense.
The Court reaffirmed the importance of lawyer independence as a crucial element in guaranteeing individuals’ right to an effective remedy under the law. However, it held that the prohibition does not interfere with this independence when legal services are connected to judicial proceedings.
The Court also recognized significant exemptions: legal advice that is necessary to ensure access to judicial or administrative proceedings or to defend rights in arbitration cases is not subject to the ban. Additionally, legal services provided in humanitarian contexts or related to the functioning of diplomatic representations can be authorized by Member States.
These rulings exemplify the EU approach to sanctions against Russia, a delicate balance between protecting fundamental rights and the essential role of lawyers in democratic societies and maintaining political and economic pressure on the Russian government.
