Suinno v. Microsoft, UPC Court of Appeal, 11 February 2025, Case no. APL_53716/2024 / UPC_CoA_563/2024
In its order of 11 February 2025, the Court of Appeal deals with the question to what extent a party to proceedings in the UPC may be represented by a representative who is employed by – or otherwise affiliated to – that party.
The Court of Appeal held that representation is not precluded by the mere fact that the representative is employed by the party he or she represents.
However, a representative who is employed by a party must act towards the Court as an independent counsellor, by serving the interests of his or her clients in an unbiased manner, without regard to his or her personal feelings or interests. Furthermore, the representative must refrain from using any information not related to the case when preserving or gathering evidence pursuant to a Court order and from disclosing such information to any person – including to his or her employer. And finally, the conduct of the representative must be compatible with the requirements of the proper administration of justice, even in cases where it may conflict with the interest of the party he or she represents. In case a corporate employed representative sees a risk that he or she cannot fulfill these obligations, the representative must recluse himself or herself from the proceedings.
Finally, the Court added that no corporate representative or other natural person who has extensive administrative and financial powers within the legal person, – whether as a result of holding a high-level management or administrative position or holding a significant amount of shares in the legal person – may serve as a representative of that legal person, regardless of whether said corporate representative of the legal person or natural person is qualified to act as a UPC representative in accordance with Art. 48(1) or (2) UPCA.
A copy of the decision can be read here.
