Sweden / Supreme Court / Ö 5910-20

CS vs. Sveriges advokatsamfund
Policy area
Internal market
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
11/06/2021
  • Sweden / Supreme Court / Ö 5910-20

    Key facts of the case:

    A German lawyer, CR, was granted registration as an EU lawyer by the Swedish Bar Association's board in August 2020. Shortly afterwards, CR applied for an exemption from rule 7.4.2 in the Bar Assiciation’s Guiding Rules for Good Legal Practice (VRGA) which states that legal practice may not be conducted in more than a company. CR intended to continue to practice law in a German company and in a Swedish law firm. The Board rejected CR's exemption application, which CR appealed to the Supreme Court.

    The Bar Association is a private law association. The statutes of the Bar Association are confirmed by the Government. This in connection with the fact that the Bar Association partly carries out activities of a public law nature in accordance with what is prescribed in Chapter 8 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, but without being an authority. The Code of Judicial Procedure includes rules on the conditions for admission as a member of the Swedish Bar Association, on the board's and disciplinary committee's supervision of the legal profession and on disciplinary interventions. The rules of the Code of Judicial Procedure are supplemented by provisions in the (VRGA). If a lawyer does not comply with the requirement of good legal practice, he or she risks being given a caution, warning and penalty fee. He or she may also be expelled from the Bar Association and thus lose the right to use the title of lawyer. These decisions by the Bar Association can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

     

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The question is whether this decision by the Swedish Bar Association can be appealed to the Supreme Court through an analogous application of Chapter 8 Paragraph 8 of the Code of Judicial Procedure.

     

    Outcome of the case:

    CR’s appeal was rejected. Th Supreme Court concluded that a right to appeal can not be based on the Code of Judicial Procedure and Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights or Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court established that the Bar Association's application of the regulation in 7.4.2 VRGA had not been arbitrary but had been applied on the basis of the norms that the board has adopted as a guide for good legal practice (god advokatsed). Furthermore, the Court noted that the decision can not in any other way be considered to deviate from the criteria set by the European Court of Justice in the case of Reinhard Gebhard (§ 15 of the judgement referred to below).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    14. Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states, inter alia: that each whose guaranteed freedoms and rights under Union law have been violated has the right to an effective remedy before a court.

    15. The freedom of establishment provided for by Union law does not preclude that under certain conditions, national restrictions may apply in the right of establishment (see Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, cf. Article 15 (2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). The case law of the European Court of Justice shows that, in principle, Member States are free to regulate the conditions for:practice the legal profession in the Member State as long as there are no specific Union legal rules for this purpose (cf. the judgment of the European Court of Justice Wouters et al. C-309/99, EU: C: 2002: 98). The conditions or ethical rules that are established must however, be - and applied - non-discriminatory, apply justified with a view to a pressing public interest and be apt to secure its purpose; they must also not go beyond what is called for. (cf. the judgment of the European Court of Justice Reinhard Gebhard, C-55/94, EU: C: 1995: 411).

    16. Union law does not in itself confer on anyone the right to practice law in several companies. The Lawyer Establishment Directive, Articles 9 and 10 in particular, regulates the types of decisions in the area that can be tried by a court and these do not include decisions of the kind in question.

    17. Admittedly, a decision to refuse an exemption from the rule in question may prevent an EU lawyer from practicing law in Sweden in that particular organisational form that he or she desires. The current rule in VRGA
    applies equally to members of the Swedish Bar Association and to registered EU lawyers. The motives for the rule that the Bar Association has stated in its opinion to the Supreme Court - namely to reduce the risk of
    conflicts of interest and to avoid uncertainty about which law firm the client has engaged - are in accordance with the requirements specified in p. 15.

    18. Nor does Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights confer a right of appeal when the Swedish Bar Association's board decides not to grant exemption from the rule in 7.4.2 VRGA. However, this presupposes that the application of the Swedish Bar Association meets the criteria set by the European Court of Justice (p. 15).

    The assessment in this case

    19. Nothing has arisen in this case which raises doubts as to the interpretation of Union law and which makes it is necessary to obtain a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice. The request for a preliminary ruling must therefore be rejected.

    20. CR cannot base any right of appeal on the Code of Judicial Procedure or Article 6.1 of the European Convention.

    21. As regards the possibility of appeal under Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court states that the Bar Association application of the rule in 7.4.2 VRGA has not been arbitrary but it based on the standards that the board has adopted as a guide for good advocacy. Nor can the decision in any other way be considered to deviate from the criteria set by the European Court of Justice (p. 15).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    14. I artikel 47 i EU:s rättighetsstadga anges bl.a. att var och en vars unionsrättsligt garanterade fri- och rättigheter har kränkts har rätt till ett effektivt rättsmedel inför en domstol. 

    15. Den etableringsfrihet som följer av unionsrätten utesluter inte att det under vissa förutsättningar får förekomma nationella begränsningar i etableringsrätten (se artikel 49 i fördraget om Europeiska unionens funktionssätt, jfr artikel 15.2 i EU:s rättighetsstadga). Av EU-domstolens praxis framgår sålunda att det i princip står medlemsstaterna fritt att reglera villkoren för att utöva advokatyrket i medlemsstaten så länge det inte finns specifika unionsrättsliga regler för detta ändamål (jfr EU-domstolens dom Wouters m.fl., C-309/99, EU:C:2002:98). De villkor eller etiska regler som ställs upp måste dock vara – och tillämpas – icke-diskriminerande, framstå som motiverade med hänsyn till ett trängande allmänintresse och vara ägnade att säkerställa det som eftersträvas; de får inte heller gå utöver vad som krävs (jfr EUdomstolens dom Reinhard Gebhard, C-55/94, EU:C:1995:411). 

    16. Unionsrätten ger inte i sig en rätt för någon att driva advokatverksamhet i flera bolag. I advokatetableringsdirektivet är det i artiklarna 9 och 10 särskilt reglerat vilka typer av beslut på området som ska kunna prövas av domstol och dessa omfattar inte beslut av det nu aktuella slaget. 

    17. Ett beslut att vägra dispens från den aktuella regeln kan visserligen hindra en EU-advokat från att bedriva advokatverksamhet i Sverige i just den organisationsform som han eller hon önskar. Den aktuella regeln i VRGA gäller emellertid lika för ledamöter av Sveriges advokatsamfund och för registrerade EU-advokater. De motiv för regeln som Advokatsamfundet har anfört i sitt yttrande till Högsta domstolen – nämligen att minska risken för intressekonflikter och att undvika oklarhet om vilken advokatbyrå som klienten har anlitat – är förenliga med de i p. 15 angivna kraven. 

    18. Inte heller artikel 47 i EU:s rättighetsstadga leder därför till att klagorätt ska anses föreligga när Advokatsamfundets styrelse beslutar att inte medge dispens från regeln i 7.4.2 VRGA. Detta förutsätter dock att Advokatsamfundets tillämpning uppfyller de kriterier som EU-domstolen har angett (p. 15).

    Bedömningen i detta fall 
    19. I frågan om avvisning av överklagandet har inte uppkommit någon sådan fråga som föranleder tvivel om tolkningen av unionsrätten och som gör det nödvändigt att hämta in ett förhandsavgörande från EU-domstolen. Yrkandet om inhämtande av förhandsavgörande ska därför avslås. Europarådets och parlamentets direktiv 98/5/EG av den 16 februari 1998 om underlättande av stadigvarande utövande av advokatyrket i en annan medlemsstat än den i vilken auktorisationen erhölls 

    20. CR kan inte grunda någon rätt till överklagande på rättegångsbalken eller artikel 6.1 i Europakonventionen. 

    21. Vad gäller möjligheten till överklagande med stöd av artikel 47 i EU:s rättighetsstadga konstaterar Högsta domstolen att Advokatsamfundets tillämpning av regeln i 7.4.2 VRGA inte har varit godtycklig utan har skett med stöd av de normer som styrelsen har antagit som vägledande för god advokatsed. Beslutet kan inte heller på något annat sätt anses avvika från de kriterier som EU-domstolen har angett (p. 15).