Facts
The appellant, X., is accused in the context of a criminal proceeding opposing him to Bank Z. On 7 September 2010, he seized the Bar Association of the Canton of Geneva, invoking a conflict of interest of Bank's attorneys, A. and B. By decision of 6 December 2010, the Bar Association concluded that there was no conflict of interest on the part of A. and B.
By judgment of 21 June 2011, the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva declared inadmissible the appeal of X., who concluded that A. and B. should be ordered to cease representing Bank in the criminal proceedings in question. The Court of Justice held that the author of a complaint to the Bar Association did not have the status of a party to the proceedings.
The Federal Court admitted the appeal of X. and referred the case to the Court of Justice, so that it could rule on the merits of the dispute.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the standing to appeal under Art. 89 para. 1 FSCA. It considered that the ban on practicing law imposed on an attorney, whether pronounced by a disciplinary or judicial authority, is not a disciplinary sanction but is the consequence of the finding of a conflict of interest.
The Federal Court also considered that the decision that imposes such a ban deprives the party of the attorney of their choice and thus directly and concretely affects them. The same applies to the decision that concludes that there is no conflict of interest and therefore forces the complainant to see a former representative represent the opposing party.
The Federal Court therefore admitted that the party has a legitimate interest within the meaning of Art. 89 para. 1 let. c FSCA in the annulment or…