EU IS THE PROBLEM: PROCURADORES (III)

REPLY OF MS. ANNA CAVAZZINI, PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL MARKET AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, EUROPEAN PARLEAMENT.

Dear Mr. Ribas-Alegret,

I would first like to thank you for your mail and time. I appreciate your interest in this matter.

Your points are indeed very interesting and definitely concern a controversy that both the European Union and the Spanish government have been conducting for a long time. However, I would also like to mention that the Spanish government is seemingly committed to adapting its legal framework to European rules. As I happen to know, the government has published and communicated new proposals only a few months ago. In this sense, I do not believe that an EU infringement procedure is further necessary; instead, I think that the best way of ‘approaching’ this issue is by not opposing the government’s commitment for legislative reforms.

REPLICA

Dear Ms. Cavazzini,

Thank you very much for your kind and prompt reply.

First, I must specify that the infringement proceedings ‘Procuradores’ have several items, whereas my complaint is focused only on the exclusive reserve to the Procuradores.

I do not know the data that you mention, because my requests for access to information (¹) were systematically dismissed in whole. However, according to the web of the Spanish Parliament, the content of the legal reform has not changed since the Council of Ministers’ project was filed the 1.10.2020 (²).

Concerning this legislative draft, the Council of Judiciary (‘Consejo General del Poder Judicial’) (³) issued a legal report (⁴), which recognize the deception,

71. ‘… our conclusion on this point is frankly unfavorable: as regards the failure to address the nuclear issue objected to by the [European] Comisión -the exclusive reservation of functions to the Procurador-, our conclusion is that the draft again fails the purposes that justify its issuance and maintains the Spanish State in a situation of non-compliance with Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU and the Directive on Services.’

74. ‘As we have pointed out in § 19 of this report, the [European] Commission has understood that the exclusive reserve to the Procuradores of the functions of «technical representation» and of communication of the parties with the courts and tribunals constitutes a restriction to the services which can be provided by other legal operators -lawyers-, without an understandable justification in overriding reasons of general interest and, thereby it is contrary to Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU and the Directive on Services.’

Conclusions, fourth. ‘… the report is totally unfavorable and considers that the draft does not satisfy at all the purposes of the reform or the requirements of the European Commission, and that this determines the persistence of infractions of Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU and the Directive on Services, infractions that will persist as long as is maintained in favor of the Procuradores the exclusive reserve of the «technical representation» and acts of communication, with the exclusion of the lawyers.’

The same opinion is reflected in my complaint of the 23.04.2013 before the Commission.

Ready to move definitely from Catalonia forced by the corruption of the Spanish judicial system, ‘I have a dream’: having contributed to remove the Procurador ‘feudal’ barrier, restoring the single market and the fundamental right of access to justice under Arts. 19(2) TEU, 47 CFREU and Directive on Services.

I thank you again for your attention, inviting you to commit such right goals by follow up the ‘Procuradores’ affair, so that the good words of the Spanish authorities may become reality, avoiding the EU Court of Justice intervention.

_______________________

1. Requests for access to information, three times before the European Commission’s Secretariat-General the 28.07.2013, with confirmatory petition of 23.08.2013; the 21.12.2015; and the 8.05.2017, with confirmatory petition of 10.07.2017. As well to the Ministry of Economy and Business the 23.06.2018; and to the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs the 8.08.2020, with review to the Council of Transparency of 22.10.2020.

2. https://www.congreso.es/web/guest/proyectos-de-ley?p_p_id=iniciativas&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_iniciativas_mode=mostrarDetalle&_iniciativas_legislatura=XIV&_iniciativas_id=121%2F000032

3. The ‘Consejo General del Poder Judicial’ is the highest governing institution of the Judiciary in Spain.

4. ‘Informe sobre el Anteproyecto de Ley por la que se modifica la Ley 34/2006, de 30 de octubre’ y otras disposiciones, pp. 25-34 and 36. https://www.poderjudicial.es/stfls/CGPJ/COMISI%C3%93N%20DE%20ESTUDIOS%20E%20INFORMES/INFORMES%20DE%20LEY/FICHERO/20190131%20Informe%20Anteproyecto%20ley%20acceso%20a%20profesiones%20de%20abogado%20y%20procurador%2019.18.pdf

Anna Cavazzini, MEP, IMCO President, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance.

 

PROCURADORES

Letter to the Members of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), European Parliament.

Dear Ms. Cavazzini,

I am writing to you concerning the lack of compliance with the Directive on Services and the Proportionality Directive, regarding the legal professions in Spain.

Surprisingly, the Kingdom of Spain is the one Member State of the European Union (*) where the Attorneys are prohibited from representing their clients in courts and the communications with them, while these functions remain exclusively reserved to a professional named “Procurador”.

This is not another case of disturbing freedom to provide services in the single market. With around EUR 100.000 million cumulated damages, its paramount importance derives from subverting the effective legal protection in all the fields covered by the Union law (Art. 19(2) TEU; Art. 47 CFREU), in a frame of high judicial corruption.

Acting as Treaties guardian, the European Commission verified that the Kingdom of Spain failed to incorporate the Directive on Services in this matter and opened infringement procedure under Art. 258 TFEU. Once the letter of formal notice and reasoned opinion was launched without reply, INFR(2015)4062, can bring the issue before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

However, after a dark tour of nine years, unexpectedly, like a stationary bicycle, the Commission gets off in the same place that went on without advancing anything, and it aims to close the procedure undermining the Directive on Services and the Directive of Proportionality.

In light of the aforementioned, I am asking for your support to avoid this breach of European law, protect the single market and the trust in the Union institutions.

Yours sincerely,

* Italy put an end to the “Procuratori legali”, attributing the activity of representation to the Attorney, Legge 24 febbraio 1997, n. 27. Soppressione dell’albo dei procuratori legali e norme in materia di esercizio della professione forense, and according to the Directive on Services, France eliminated the “Avoué” that still subsisted in the appeal courts by Loi n.º 2011-94, de 25 janvier 2011 (into force from 1 January 2012).

Recipients: Anna CAVAZZINI, Chair; Andrus ANSIP, Vice-Chair; Maria GRAPINI, Vice-Chair; Róża THUN UND HOHENSTEIN, Vice-Chair; SCHALDEMOSE; Coordinator; Christel ANDREAS SCHWAB, Coordinator and Raporteur of the Directive of Proportionality; Alex AGIUS SALIBA, Alessandra BASSO, Brando BENIFEI, Adam BIELAN, Hynek BLAŠKO, Biljana BORZAN, Vlad-Marius BOTOŞ, Markus BUCHHEIT, Deirdre CLUNE, David CORMAND, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Carlo FIDANZA, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Alexandra GEESE, Sandro GOZI, Svenja HAHN, Virginie JORON, Eugen JURZYCA, Arba KOKALARI, Marcel KOLAJA, Kateřina KONEČNÁ, Andrey KOVATCHEV, Morten LØKKEGAARD, Antonius MANDERS, Beata MAZUREK, Karen MELCHIOR, Leszek MILLER, Dan-Ştefan MOTREANU, Anne-Sophie PELLETIER, Miroslav RADAČOVSKÝ, Christel SCHALDEMOSE, Tomislav SOKOL, Kim Van SPARRENTAK, Ivan ŠTEFANEC, Tom VANDENKENDELAERE, Marion WALSMANN, Kosma ZŁOTOWSKI, Marco ZULLO.