EU judges disavow lawyers: they will not be able to provide advice to Putin

EU judges disavow lawyers: they will not be able to provide advice to Putin

European lawyers cannot provide legal advice to Russian companies and entities, especially those targeted by European sanctions imposed in response to the invasion of Ukraine. This was confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union which, responding to an appeal by lawyers’ associations, reiterated the ban on providing legal consultancy services to the Moscow government and to all entities, bodies and legal persons established in Russia. However, lawyers can still defend any citizens who end up on trial.

The decision

In 2022, following the Russian invasion of Kiev, the Council of the EU had adopted a regulation containing a series of restrictive measures to be adopted against Vladimir Putin’s Russia, including the ban on providing legal assistance which includes ” providing legal advice to clients in matters of voluntary jurisdiction, including commercial transactions, involving the application or interpretation of law; participating with or on behalf of clients in commercial transactions, negotiations and other negotiations with third parties; and the preparation, execution and verification of legal documents”. The ban had and has as its main objective to increase pressure on the Russian Federation to decide to put an end to the aggression against Kiev.

The lawyers’ protest

The ban has had a major impact on large European law firms, hired by Russian oligarchs to defend them from sanctions adopted across Europe as a result of Russian aggression on Ukraine, primarily the freezing of their assets. It was the Flemish Bar Association of the Brussels Bar, the Paris Bar Association and the Association Avocats Ensemble (lawyers union) to present an application before the General Court of the European Union for annulment of the ban imposed by Brussels. The ban would, in their opinion, be unmotivated and would violate the fundamental rights which guarantee access to legal advice from a lawyer, professional secrecy, the values ​​of the rule of law, the duty of independence of professional figures and the principles of proportionality of the right.

The reactions

“There are many lawyers in Europe who feel uncomfortable about the sanctions imposed on other countries. They affect their work, preventing them from providing services directly or indirectly to both the Russian government and local companies. We are one of these firms and we take these restrictions seriously,” said Lupicinio Rodriguez, partner and director of the international law firm Lupicinio International Law firm, in July. Rodriguez then added that he expected that, after their appeal, the Court’s decision would change, but the Court did not rule in favor, on the contrary.

The Court rejected the appeals presented by the three bodies and recalls that “any person has the right, recognized by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to effective judicial protection, which includes the right to be advised and represented by a lawyer in a current or probable contentious context. It considers that this right is not called into question by the contested ban”.

Application of the ban

A statement from the European Court explains that the ban on providing legal assistance does not concern services provided in connection with judicial, administrative or arbitral proceedings and is not even applicable in the case of natural persons, i.e. individuals for himself.

The Court adds that the fundamental role of the lawyer in respecting and defending the rule of law may be subject to limitations. In fact, this role may be subject to restrictions justified by objectives of general interest pursued by the Union, such as putting an end to a war of aggression.

Obviously this possibility is accompanied by the condition that the limitations adopted do not constitute, with respect to the aim pursued, “a disproportionate and unacceptable intervention that undermines the very substance of the role entrusted to lawyers in a rule of law”. According to the Court, this is one of the cases absolutely in line with the principle of proportionality and general interest for the Union.