Autor: AEA - EAL

Advocates 2018 – Improving the Quality of Legal Services, 15 – 17 June 2018 in Almaty, Kazakhstan


120 lawyers from 14 countries, 5 moderators and 33 speakers discussed in Almaty in June 15 – 16 how to improve the quality of legal services in Kazakhstan and in other countries of the Central Asia.

Five conference sessions: INDEPENDENCE was chaired by Maria Ślązak, CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION chaired by Sergiey Sizintzev, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS chaired by Jędrzej Klatka, LEGAL AID, chaired by Jonathan Goldsmith, and DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS chaired by Norville Conolly. Within topics discussed during the conference “Advocates 2018” we promoted the concept of the self-regulated profession, boosted networking between advocates from Central Asia, Europe and other continents as well as promoted mutual professional co-operation between legal practitioners from different regions and legal jurisdictions. The event allowed a wide participation of our colleagues from the diverse regions to create a real forum not only for exchanging opinions and views, but also for filling information deficits, debating different viewpoints and for informal talks. It was probably the most important for advocates from Central Asia – lively discussions took place both on during sessions as well as on coffee breaks and lunches. Based on these discussion, conference recommendations have been drafted and presented.

Post-conference information is available for download
Photos from the conference:
First day

Second day

New AEA-EAL Board members

We are pleased to announced that during the last AEA-EAL General Assembly two new Members of the Board of Directors has been elected: David Asatiani, President of the Georgian Bar Association and Andrzej Kaliński, Dean of the Białystok Bar Association, Poland. Congratulations to our new Directors!

We also wish to inform that Patrick Conrad from Belgium has ended his membership in the Board. Thank you Patrick for your work, engagement and devotion for the AEA-EAL that has been shown for years of your activity as the AEA-EAL Director.

Successful conference in Almaty, Kazakhstan

120 lawyers from 14 countries, 5 moderators and 33 speakers discussed in Almaty in June 15 – 16 on how to improve the quality of legal services in Kazakhstan and in other countries of the Central Asia.

The area covered by the conference topic was very broad therefore conference was divided into six sessions: INDEPENDENCE chaired by Maria Ślązak, AEA-EAL President, CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION chaired by Sergiey Sizintzev, Executive Director of the Republican Collegium of Advocates of Kazakhstan, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS chaired by Jędrzej Klatka, representant of the AEA-EAL, chair of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Polish National Bar of Attorneys-at-law, LEGAL AID, chaired by Jonathan Goldsmith, representant of the IBA and DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS chaired by Norville Conolly, representant of the IBA. The aim of each session was to elaborate recommendations in the respective area on how to improve the quality of legal services in Kazakhstan and in other countries of the region according to international standards established by the United Nations, Council of Europe, IBA and CCBE. Conference recommendations will be available soon.

You can find conference photos on our Facebook:

First day of the conference

Second day of the conference

Letter from Anuar Tugel

We received a letter from Mr. Anuar Tugel, Chairman of the Republican Collegium of Advocates of Kazakhstan. You may find the photocopy of the letter below:

Advocates 2018 – Improving the Quality of Legal Services

15 – 17 June 2018 in Almaty, Kazakhstan


120 lawyers from 14 countries, 5 moderators and 33 speakers discussed in Almaty in June 15 – 16 how to improve the quality of legal services in Kazakhstan and in other countries of the Central Asia.

Five conference sessions: INDEPENDENCE was chaired by Maria Ślązak, CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION chaired by Sergiey Sizintzev, PROFESSIONAL ETHICS chaired by Jędrzej Klatka, LEGAL AID, chaired by Jonathan Goldsmith, and DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS chaired by Norville Conolly. Within topics discussed during the conference “Advocates 2018” we promoted the concept of the self-regulated profession, boosted networking between advocates from Central Asia, Europe and other continents as well as promoted mutual professional co-operation between legal practitioners from different regions and legal jurisdictions. The event allowed a wide participation of our colleagues from the diverse regions to create a real forum not only for exchanging opinions and views, but also for filling information deficits, debating different viewpoints and for informal talks. It was probably the most important for advocates from Central Asia – lively discussions took place both on during sessions as well as on coffee breaks and lunches. Based on these discussions, conference recommendations have been drafted and presented.

Post-conference information is available for download

Post-conference publication:

Conference Report EN

Conference Report RU

Photos from the conference:
First day

Second day

Independence of Advocates and Bars

Intervention for the AEA-EAL conference in Almaty, June 15 – 16, 2020


Ph. D. Elisabeth Hoffmann

June 11, 2018

Introduction

Lawyers play many vital roles in democratic systems by preserving, protecting and perpetuating the rights of citizens. In order to accomplish their mission, lawyers have essential rights but also significant duties such as.:
– independence of the public authorities
– freedom of speech
– the right not to be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes ;
– the right to legal privilege (professional secrecy) and the duty to safeguard it.

I. The principle of independence

In an impartial and balanced judicial system, lawyers play a vital role as a genuine auxiliary of justice. Their independence defined and protected by ethical rules of the profession, is indeed in the heart of an impartial justice. In their position as auxiliary of justice, lawyers do not organically belong to the public service of justice. They need to be independent . This independence has several aspects:
a) it is an intellectual first: lawyers must remain responsible of the legal arguments and the advices they give. They also need the right to refuse cases contrary to their conscience or likely to impair their independence
b) In order to maintain their independence, they have to keep a financial distance from their clients. For this reason, contingency fees are for example prohibited in the EU and there is a ban on participation in commercial activities.
The code of Conduct of European Lawyers enacted by the European Council of Bars and Law Societies (CCBE), formerly presided by Ms. Maria Slazak, describes under article 2.1 as follows the various implications of the principle of independence :
« The many duties to which a lawyer is subject require the lawyer’s absolute independence, free from all other influence, especially such as may arise from his or her personal interests or external pressure. Such independence is as necessary to trust in the process of justice as the impartiality of the judge. A lawyer must therefore avoid any impairment of his or her independence and be careful not to compromise his or her professional standards in order to please the client, the court or third parties. ».

II. Lawyer’s independence in the European approach

a) Freedom of expression and its limits

There is no justice if the lawyer is not free to speak without constraint and guaranteed by a strong immunity. This freedom of expression is an essential guarantee for the defense of citizen’s rights. In the case Morice v / France, the European Court of Human Rights stated that:
‚Being the cornerstone of a democratic society, freedom of expression had a particular characteristic as regards lawyers, who had to be able to carry on their profession without hindrance; if the use of their speech were to be censored or restricted, the real and effective defense of the citizen would not be guaranteed [ECHR case Morice v / France, 23 April 2015, application n° 29369/10 of 7 May 2010). If necessary in a democratic society, freedom of expression of the lawyer may only be exceptionally limited, in order namely to impede the disclosure of information received in confidence (professional secrecy), to prevent the attempts to the reputation or rights of other persons or to the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

b) Independence of the lawyer vis-a-vis his client

A reference to this kind of independence is made in the Code of Conduct for European Lawyers enacted by CCBE when it states that: ‚A lawyer must therefore avoid any impairment of his or her independence and be careful not to compromise his or her professional standards in order to please the client. (Article2.1.).
As qualified and trained professionals, lawyers will first of all advise their clients in consideration of applicable laws and become logically ‚the first judge of the case’. Furthermore, their necessary professional and intellectual independence implies that they should never be identified with their client’s causes. This consideration is extremely important due to the tendency, in certain countries, especially in non-democratic systems, to assimilate clients’ causes with their lawyers in order to jeopardize lawyers’ independence and freedom of speech.

c) Independence in front of the state authorities

In criminal proceedings, lawyers ensure the balance between defendants’ rights and their mission of maintaining public order. They must have the means to oppose the state authorities in order to assure the defense and representation of their clients, without fear for the latter or for themselves. A lawyer should never be subordinated to a political power and may only be controlled by independent self-regulating bodies i.e. Bars and/or the Law Societies. This independence from the State increases indeed substantially the necessary confidence of the client. The client’s rights are, of course, much better protected if he his is represented by a qualified professional who is not submitted to public authorities. Moreover, the respect of the ethical rules enacted by Bars and Law Societies independent from States contributes to reinforce the lawyer’s relationship of trust with his client. In many Member States of the EU, the legal profession successfully defends its ethical rules by letting them recognize by the States. Indeed, self regulation (fixing freely their professional rules and ability to organize and manage the profession) has to be considered as a corollary to the core value of independence.

d) Professional secrecy, a basic element of client’s trust and lawyer’s independence

By combining Articles 8 (right to privacy) and 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights offers an adequate protection of the duty of confidentiality – a principle which is not defined in the texts.
In the case Michaud v / France (ECHR 6 December 2012, application n° 12323/111 of 19 January 2011) the European Court of Human Rights stated that the licit fight against money laundering may not justify the deletion of the lawyers’ right to professional secrecy. It stressed that this right is essential in a democratic system and that the obligation for a lawyer to inform and cooperate with the authorities responsible for the fight against money laundering has to be executed in due consideration of the necessities of the protection of lawyers’ professional secrecy. The 4th EU directive No. 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing applies this jurisprudence by providing that the delivery of the concerned information to the public authorities must be previously submitted to the approval of the competent Bar or Law Society which will decide if this disclosure could jeopardize the protection of professional secrecy.

e) The recent jurisprudence of the EHCR

In a judgment rendered on April 4, 2018 (ECHR, Correia de Matos v / Portugal, 4 April 2018, application n° 56402/12 of 4 August 2012), the European Court of Human Rights has resumed its vision of the essential role played by independent and competent lawyers in the administration of justice. „139. The Court reiterates the most important role played by lawyers in the administration of justice. It has frequently referred to the fact that the specific status of lawyers gives them a central position in the administration of justice as intermediaries between the public and the courts and has pointed to the fact that, for members of the public to have confidence in the administration of justice, they must have confidence in the ability of the legal profession to provide effective representation (…); 140. That special role of lawyers, as independent professionals, in the administration of justice entails a number of duties, particularly with regard to their conduct, which must be discreet, honest and dignified (…) 141 . In Recommendation No. R(2000)21 on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe emphasized that the profession of an advocate must be exercised in such a way that it strengthens the rule of law. Furthermore, the principles applicable to the profession of advocate contain such values as the dignity and honour of the legal profession, the integrity and good standing of the individual advocate, respect towards professional colleagues as well as respect for the fair administration of justice;” Ill No independent lawyer without independent bar. In the context of the legal profession, in addition to „independence of lawyers”, the democratic societies necessarily accept the necessity of the establishment of independent bodies self-regulating the legal profession, i.e. of the „independence of the Bar(s)”.

In a recommendation to Member States, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has namely stated that:
„Bar associations or other professional lawyers’ associations should be encouraged to ensure the independence of lawyers and, inter alia, to:
a. promote and uphold the cause of justice, without fear;
b. defend the role of lawyers in society and, in particular, to maintain their honour, dignity and integrity;
c. promote the participation by lawyers in schemes to ensure the access to justice of persons in an economically weak position, in particular the provision of legal aid and advice;
d. promote and support law reform and discussion on existing and proposed legislation;
e. promote the welfare of members of the profession and assist them or their families if circumstances so require;
f. cooperate with lawyers of other countries in order to promote the role of lawyers, in particular by considering the work of international organizations of lawyers and international intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations;
g. promote the highest possible standards of competence of lawyers and maintain respect by lawyers for the standards of conduct and discipline.” [Recommendation R(2000)21, art.V § 4].

IV. The relations between lawyers and courts

The actual vision of a valuable relationship between lawyers and courts in a democratic society is properly expressed in the Opinion no. (2013) 16 on the relations between judges and lawyers, issued by the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) on 13-15 November 2013 :
7. Judges and lawyers must be independent in the exercise of their duties, and must also be, and be seen to be, independent from each other. This independence is affirmed by the statute and ethical principles adopted by each profession. The CCJE considers such independence vital for the proper functioning of justice.
21. The CCJE considers that the „relations between judges and lawyers should be based on the mutual understanding of each other’s role, on mutual respect and on independence vis-a-vis each other. The CCJE accordingly considers it necessary to develop dialogues and exchanges between judges and lawyers at a national and European institutional level on the issue of their mutual relations. The ethical principles of both judges and lawyers should be taken into account. In this regard, the CCJE encourages the identification of common ethical principles, such as the duty of independence, the duty to sustain the rule of law at all times, co-operation to ensure a fair and swift conduct of the proceedings and permanent professional training. Professional associations and independent governing bodies of both judges and lawyers should be responsible for this process.”

V. Conclusions

Lawyers and their professional organizations have a crucial role in a democratic society founded on the respect of the Rule of the Law and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Lawyers must be able to work independently and without fear and they deserve therefore special attention by everyone interested in a fair and impartial system of justice. Furthermore, the lawyers’ independence is not conceivable without the establishment of professional independent associations. In every country, lawyers should consequently be entitled to form and join self-governing bodies to represent their interests and protect their professional integrity. These bodies shall cooperate closely with governments and courts to ensure that everyone has effective and equal access to legal services. They should also guarantee that the lawyers may counsel and assist their clients in accordance with law and recognized professional standards and ethics, without improper interference of public authorities. These core values of the profession are strongly linked and interdependent. They are the basic conditions of democratic society where citizens are entitled to confidence in their political and judicial system in order to ensure their fundamental rights and freedoms.

Congratulations to Monique Stengel

We are delighted to announce, That Monique Stengel, Past President of the AEA-EAL, serving currently as member of the Board of Directors, has been elected for the post of the Treasurer of the Federation of the European Bars! With this occasion we wish Monique success with her new duties.

Court of Justice of the European Union 31 January 2018 – C-106/17

May 28, 2018

Sibylle Calabresi-Scholz

Article 13(2) Brussels Ia Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that it may not be relied on by a natural person, whose professional activity consists, inter alia, in recovering claims for damages from insurers and who relies on a contract for the assignment of a claim concluded with the victim of a road accident, to bring a civil liability action against the insurer of the person responsible for that accident, which has its registered office in a Member State other than the Member State of the place of domicile of the injured party, before a court of the Member State in which the injured party is domiciled.

1. Facts underlying the Decision

On 4 July 2014, a vehicle belonging to a natural person domiciled in Poland was damaged in a traffic accident in Germany caused by a German national insured with LVM Landwirtschaftlicher Versicherungsverein Münster AG (‘LVM’), established in Münster (Germany).
On 12 July 2014, the owner of that vehicle entered into a rental contract for a replacement vehicle for an indefinite period; as the rate was 200 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately EUR 47.50) per day and the rental period extended until 22 September 2014, the rental cost amounted to PLN 14 600 (approximately EUR 3 465).
However, the owner has only been compensated for PLN 2 800 (approximately EUR 665) by a company representing LVM in Poland.
On 22 September 2014, in order to receive the remaining PLN 11 800 (approximately EUR 2 800), the owner of the vehicle concluded a contract for the assignment of a claim, whereby he transferred his right to damages to Mr Hofsoe, who exercises his commercial activity in Szczecin (Poland).
In relation to that activity, on the basis of a contractual assignment of a claim, Mr Hofsoe assumes responsibility for securing compensation from insurers to which an injured party may be entitled.
On 2 February 2015, on the basis of the contract for the assignment of a claim as referred to in paragraph 19 of the present judgment, Mr Hofsoe brought an action before the Sąd Rejonowy Szczecin-Centrum w Szczecinie seeking, principally, the amount of PLN 11 800 (approximately EUR 2 800) from LVM by way of compensation corresponding to the rental cost of a replacement vehicle.
For the purposes of establishing the jurisdiction of that court as that of the injured party’s place of domicile, Mr Hofsoe relied on Article 20 of the Law on compulsory insurance, the Insurance Guarantee Fund and the Polish Motor Vehicle Insurance Office of 22 May 2003 and the judgment of the Court of 13 December 2007, FBTO Schadeverzekeringen .
However, relying on Article 9(1) Brussels I Regulation 44/2001, read in conjunction with Article 11(2) of that regulation, LVM disputed the jurisdiction of that Polish court. It maintained that the concept of ‘injured party’ within the meaning of Article 11(2) of that regulation should be interpreted literally so that Mr Hofsoe could not sue it before a Polish court in his capacity as assignee of the injured party’s claim.
However, the Sąd Rejonowy Szczecin-Centrum w Szczecinie declared itself to have jurisdiction by a decision of 13 May 2015.
In support of the appeal which it brought against that decision before the referring court, the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie , LVM primarily contends that the court of first instance misinterpreted Article 13(2) Brussels Ia Regulation 1215/2012, read in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b) of that regulation, by holding, contrary to the guidance to be derived from recitals 15 and 18 of that regulation and from the case-law of the Court, that Mr Hofsoe should have been regarded as the weaker party in the dispute. According to LVM, Mr Hofsoe is not the injured party as such, but a professional engaged in obtaining damages from insurance companies. Furthermore, as a derogation from the general rule of jurisdiction laid down in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, Article 13(2) of that regulation should be interpreted strictly.
Mr Hofsoe maintains that the attribution of jurisdiction to the courts for the place where thepolicyholder, the insured or a beneficiary is domiciled, as provided in Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001, which has been replaced by Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012, (‘the forum actoris’) is not reserved exclusively for the party directly injured, so that the assignee of the injured party’s claim should also be entitled to rely on it.
The referring court considers it necessary to make a reference to the Court in so far as the field of application ratione personae of the attribution of jurisdiction provided for in Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 depends, in this instance, on the interpretation of the concept of ‘injured party’, within the meaning of Article 13(2) of that regulation. The jurisdiction of the referring court is established only if it were considered that the concept of ‘injured party’ includes a professional in the insurance sector, assignee of the claim for damages held by the person directly injured against the insurer of the vehicle which caused a traffic accident.
In that regard, the referring court points out, under Article 509(2) of the Civil Code, ‘all rights associated with the claim (…) shall be transferred with the claim’. In those circumstances, the assignment of the claim should include that of the benefit of jurisdiction. Such an interpretation would contribute towards achieving the purpose of protecting the weaker party, which underlies the special rules of jurisdiction applicable in insurance matters.
The referring court takes the view that the concept of ‘injured party’, within the meaning of Article 11(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 and consequently, of Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, refers both to the person who suffered the damage directly as well as to a person who only suffered that damage indirectly. Therefore, that concept should cover the person who carries out, as a natural person, a professional activity of claims recovery in order to obtain compensation for damages against insurance companies, on the basis of a contract for the assignment of a claim concluded with the directly injured party. According to the referring court, that solution is all the more applicable as, in this case, there is a clear imbalance, from an economic and organisational point of view, between Mr Hofsoe’s position and that of an insurer as legal person, whose capacities, in that regard, are significantly larger.
That specific comparison of the respective situations of the parties to the main proceedings also highlights the difference between the underlying facts of the dispute in the main proceedings and those giving rise to the judgments of 17 September 2009, Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse , and of 26 May 2005, GIE Réunion européenne and Others .
The referring court observes, however, that the interpretation which it suggests of Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, read in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b) of that regulation, conflicts with the principle of strict interpretation of exceptions and, more particularly, Article 5(1) of that regulation, read in the light of recital 15 thereof.
In those circumstances, the Sąd Okręgowy w Szczecinie decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Must the reference, in Article 13(2) [Brussels Ia Regulation] to Article 11(1)(b) thereof be interpreted as meaning that a natural person, a businessman, who is engaged in, inter alia, obtaining damages from insurers, and who relies on the acquisition by contract of a claim from the party directly injured may bring an action for that claim against the civil-liability insurer of the person responsible for a road accident, which has its registered office in a Member State other than the Member State of the place of domicile of the injured party, before a court of the Member State in which the injured party is domiciled?

2. Findings of the Court

(1) Direct action under national law
As the CJEU notes, Article 822(4) of the Polish Civil Code makes it possible, for the person entitled to compensation, to bring a direct action against the insurer, which, under Article 13(2) Brussels Ia Regulation, results in Articles 10 to 12 of that regulation being applicable.
(2) Extension of the forum actoris to assignees of the rights of the directly injured party
The Court recalls that it has held in MMA IARD that the purpose of the reference in Article 13(2) Brussels Ia Regulation is to add injured parties to the list of claimants contained in Article 11(1)(b), without restricting the category of persons having suffered damage to those suffering it directly. Thus, the forum actoris must be extended respectively to the heirs of an insured party and to the employer who continued to pay the salary of an employee injured in a road accident while he is on sick leave after that accident. Those decisions are based on the reasoning that, first, the purpose of the provisions listed in Section 3 of Chapter II Brussels Ia Regulation is to protect the weaker party by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules and, second, an assignee of the rights of the directly injured party, who may himself be considered to be a weaker party, should be able to benefit from the special rules on the jurisdiction of courts laid down in the combined provisions of Article 11(1)(b) and of Article 13(2).
(3) No extension of protection to persons for whom that protection is not justified

As the CJEU has already held, the special rules of jurisdiction for the protection of insured are to be interpreted strictly and not to be extended to persons for whom that protection is not justified. That is the case for example where the parties concerned are professionals in the insurance sector, neither of whom may be presumed to be in a weaker position than the other. The Court follows that, therefore, a person such as Mr Hofsoe, who carries out a professional activity recovering insurance indemnity claims against insurance companies, in his capacity as contractual assignee of such claims, should not benefit from the special protection constituted by the forum actoris. The fact that he carries out his business on a small scale cannot lead to the conclusion that he is deemed to be a weaker party than the insurer. According to the Court, a case-by-case assessment of the question whether such a professional may be considered as a ‘weaker party’ in order to be covered by the definition of ‘injured party’, within the meaning of Article 13(2) Brussels Ia Regulation, would give rise to the risk of legal uncertainty and would be contrary to the objective of that regulation, laid down in recital 15 thereof, according to which the rules of jurisdiction must be highly predictable.

AEA-EAL workshop for young lawyers, May 4 2018 in Chisinau, Moldova

AEA-EAL together with Moldavian Young Lawyers Association (MYLA) organized on May 4, 2018 a seminar for young lawyers on European convention on the profession of lawyer (context and need for adoption), view on ethics rules – independence, confidentiality and conflict of interest as well as issues related to management of the law firms. The event took place in Chisinau.

AEA-EAL workshop for young lawyers

May 4 2018 in Chisinau, Moldova

AEA-EAL together with the Moldavian Young Lawyers Association (MYLA) organized on May 4, 2018, a seminar for young lawyers on the European convention on the profession of lawyer (context and need for adoption), view on ethics rules – independence, confidentiality, and conflict of interest as well as issues related to the management of the law firms. The event took place in Chisinau.

AEA-EAL is committed to handling your Personal data in ccompalince with applicable data protection laws, including the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"). If you have any questions, please contact us at privacy@aea-eal.eu. Our privacy policy and cookies policy are available here.
AEA-EAL aisbl - siege social/headquartes: Avenue Louise 235 - 1050 Bruxelles/Brussels - Belgique/Belgium KBO/BCE 0465.302.664
phone: +32 (0)2 467 34 24 e-mail: aea-eal@aea-eal.eu

Copyright 2023 AEA-EAL