Does an EU notary or an interpreter infringe the prohibition on providing legal advisory services to a legal person established in Russia? NO

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has rendered its judgement in the Jemerak case (Case C-109/23).

This case involved questions about

• The interpretation of Article 5n(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, which concerns restrictive measures because of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine.

The key issues addressed were.:-

• Whether a German notary or an interpreter infringes the prohibition on providing legal advisory services to a legal person established in Russia when authenticating a contract for the sale of property or translating the content of the authentication proceedings.

JUDGEMENT HIGHLIGHTS:

- The CJEU ruled that the activities of the notary and interpreter, as described, do not constitute the provision of legal advisory services prohibited under Article 5n(2) of the Regulation.

- The court emphasised that the prohibition is aimed at preventing the provision of services that could facilitate the circumvention of sanctions and the activities in question were deemed to be administrative rather than advisory.

This judgement clarifies the scope of the prohibition on legal advisory services under the EU sanctions regime, guiding legal professionals in the EU.

DETAILS ON THE JUDGEMENT OR ITS IMPLICATIONS?

The Jemerak case (Case C-109/23) involved several key questions about the interpretation of Article 5n(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, which concerns restrictive measures in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine.

KEY ISSUES ADDRESSED:

1. Notary's Role: Whether a German notary infringes the prohibition on providing legal advisory services to a legal person established in Russia when authenticating a contract for the sale of property.
2. Interpreter's Role: Whether an interpreter violates the same prohibition by translating the content of the authentication proceedings for a representative of the Russian legal person.
3. Notarial Activities: Whether the notary infringes the prohibition by performing notarial activities required by law for the execution of the contract of sale, such as handling the payment via an escrow account, requesting necessary documents, and submitting documents for registration of the title transfer.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS JUDGEMENT  

The judgement in the Jemerak case (Case C-109/23) by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has several broader implications:

Legal Clarity:

1. Scope of Legal Advisory Services: The judgement clarifies what constitutes legal advisory services under EU sanctions regulations. By distinguishing between administrative and advisory roles, it provides clearer guidelines for legal professionals, notaries, and interpreters working with entities under sanctions.

Compliance and Sanctions:

2. Sanctions Compliance: The ruling emphasises the importance of adhering to the specific definitions and scopes of activities prohibited under sanctions. This helps ensure that sanctions are effectively enforced without overreaching into areas not intended by the regulations.

Professional Conduct:

3. Guidance for Legal Professionals: Legal professionals, including notaries and interpreters, now understand their permissible activities when dealing with entities under sanctions. This reduces the risk of unintentional violations and promotes better compliance with EU regulations.

Administrative Efficiency:

4. Administrative Roles: By recognising the administrative nature of certain notarial and interpretive activities, the judgement supports the continued functioning of necessary legal and administrative processes, even in sanctions.

Broader Legal Framework:

5. Precedent for Future Cases: This judgement sets a precedent for future cases involving the interpretation of sanctions regulations, potentially influencing how similar cases are handled across the EU.

Source:  

(1) The CJEU Judgement in the Schrems II Case - European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2020/652073/EPRS_ATA%282020%29652073_EN.pdf.

(2) The Schrems II judgment of the Court of Justice and ... - European Law Blog. https://europeanlawblog.eu/2020/07/17/the-schrems-ii-judgment-of-the-court-of-justice-and-the-future-of-data-transfer-regulation/.

(3) The Court of Justice of the European Union in Schrems II: The impact of .... https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union-in-schrems-ii-the-impact-of-gdpr-on-data-flows-and-national-security/.

(4) European Citizenship and Fundamental rights: The Zambrano Case. https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/kslr/2012/01/04/the-zambrano-case/.

(5) The direct effect of European Union law - EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/the-direct-effect-of-european-union-law.html.

Source:  

(1) EUR-Lex - 62023CN0109 - EN - EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62023CN0109.

(2) CURIA - List of results. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-109/23.

(3) EUR-Lex - 62005CJ0402 - EN - EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62005CJ0402.

(4) Digest of the case-law - Court of Justice of the European Union - CURIA. https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7046/en/.

(5) EUR-Lex - 62021CJ0333 - EN - EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62021CJ0333.

Source:  

(1) EUR-Lex - 62023CN0109 - EN - EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62023CN0109 .

(2) CURIA - List of results. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-109/23.

(3) EUR-Lex - 52021IP0256 - EN - EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021IP0256.

(4) EUR-Lex - 62008CJ0135 - EN - EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0135.

(5) EUR-Lex - 62021CJ0333 - EN - EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62021CJ0333.