Case Law
Rule 290: Powers of the Court as regards representatives

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, Order dated 26/06/2024, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v. Microsoft Corporation (Case/ Registry number: App_19084/2024, ORD_27206/2024)
Example of decision on the lack of independence of a representative: "8. The lack of independence must therefore be assessed not in an absolute sense, but with reference to the possible harm to the interests of the party on whose behalf the professional acts. 9. It follows that the mere fact that XX also carries out active administrative tasks on behalf of the represented party and that he may be directly interested in the outcome of the case is not decisive in order to consider that the representative is not independent for the purposes of interest here. 10. In any case, it can be observed that given the instrumental nature of the obligation of independence to protect the party’s right to an effective defence in court, its possible violation cannot be asserted by the counterparty, which has no interest in such a finding, but only by the party for whose benefit such an obligation is placed. 11. Finally, while it is true that the Court may exclude a lawyer from the proceedings when he or she uses his or her rights for purposes other than those for which they were granted, there is no evidence to support such conduct."