ORDER OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)
20 November 2025 (*)
( Taxation of costs )
In Case C‑141/23 P(R)-DEP,
APPLICATION for taxation of recoverable costs under Article 145 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, made on 19 May 2025,
Telefónica de España SA, established in Madrid (Spain), represented by F. González Díaz, abogado, and P. Stuart, Barrister,
applicant,
v
European Commission, represented by J. Estrada de Solà and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents,
defendant,
THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),
composed of I. Ziemele, President of the Chamber, T. von
Danwitz (Rapporteur), Vice-President of the Court, acting as Judge of the Sixth Chamber, and A. Kumin, Judge,
Advocate General: M. Szpunar,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after hearing the Advocate General,
makes the following
Order
1        The present case concerns taxation of the costs incurred by Telefónica de España SA in Cases C‑141/23 P(R) and C‑141/23 P(R)-R.
2        On 23 May 2019, by a contract notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union, the European Commission launched the call for tenders DIGIT/A 3/PR/2019/010, entitled ‘Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations (TESTA)’. The purpose of that call for tenders was the conclusion of an interinstitutional framework contract with the successful tenderer for the provision of a secure and highly available network infrastructure.
3        On 22 July 2020, a consortium, composed of Telefónica de España and two other operators, submitted a tender in that tendering procedure.
4        On 18 January 2022, the Commission adopted the decision awarding the contracts in that tendering procedure.
5        By decision of 21 January 2022, relating to the call for tenders DIGIT/A 3/PR/2019/010, the Commission informed Telefónica de España that its tender had not been selected and informed it of the imminent signing of a contract with the successful tenderer (‘the decision at issue’).
6        By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court of the European Union on 31 March 2022, Telefónica de España brought an action for annulment of that decision.
7        By separate document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on the same day, Telefónica de España lodged an application for interim measures seeking an order, inter alia, that the Commission suspend the operation of the decision at issue and suspend the signing of that contract.
8        By order of 1 April 2022, Telefónica de España v Commission (T‑170/22 R), the President of the General Court ordered the suspension of operation of the decision at issue.
9        By order of 14 July 2022, Telefónica de España v Commission (T‑170/22 R, EU:T:2022:460), the President of the General Court cancelled the order of 1 April 2022, Telefónica de España v Commission (T‑170/22 R) and dismissed the application for interim measures referred to in paragraph 7 above.
10      By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 17 July 2022, Telefónica de España brought a first appeal, directed against the order of 14 July 2022, Telefónica de España v Commission
(T‑170/22 R, EU:T:2022:460). By separate document lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on the same day, it lodged an application for interim measures seeking an order, inter alia, that the Commission suspend the signing of a contract in the context of the call for tenders DIGIT/A 3/PR/2019/010.
11      By order of 22 July 2022, Telefónica de España v Commission (C‑478/22 P(R)-R, EU:C:2022:598), the Vice-President of the Court of Justice ordered the Commission to refrain from signing such a contract until the adoption of the order terminating the proceedings for interim measures or ruling on the appeal in Case C‑478/22 P(R), whichever was the earlier.
12      By order of 22 November 2022, Telefónica de España v Commission (C‑478/22 P(R), EU:C:2022:914), the Vice-President of the Court of Justice set aside the order of 14 July 2022, Telefónica de España v Commission (T‑170/22 R, EU:T:2022:460) and referred the case back to the General Court.
13      By order of 28 February 2023, Telefónica de España v Commission (T‑170/22 R-RENV, EU:T:2023:89), the Vice-President of the General Court dismissed the application for interim measures brought by Telefónica de España before the General Court, referred to in paragraph 7 of the present order, and cancelled the order of the President of the General Court of 1 April 2022, Telefónica de España v Commission (T‑170/22 R).
14      By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 8 March 2023, Telefónica de España brought a second appeal, directed against the order of 28 February 2023, Telefónica de España v Commission (T‑170/22 R-RENV, EU:T:2023:89) (‘the second appeal’).
15      At the same time as bringing that appeal, the applicant, by document lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 9 March 2023, lodged an application for interim measures seeking an order, inter alia, that the Commission suspend the signing of a contract in the context of the call for tenders DIGIT/A 3/PR/2019/010.
16      By documents lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 14 March 2023, Telefónica de España requested that the Court treat as confidential, vis-à-vis BT Global Services Belgium BV, intervener at first instance, part of certain annexes to that appeal, part of a paragraph of its application for interim measures and part of certain annexes to that application.
17      By order of 14 March 2023, Telefónica de España v Commission (C‑141/23 P(R)-R, EU:C:2023:292), the Vice-President of the Court of Justice ordered the Commission to refrain from signing a contract in the context of the call for tenders DIGIT/A 3/PR/2019/010 until the adoption of the order terminating the interim measures proceedings or ruling on the appeal in Case C‑141/23 P(R), whichever was the earlier.
18      By orders of 31 March 2023, Telefónica de España v Commission (C‑141/23 P(R), EU:C:2023:290), and Telefónica de España v Commission (C‑141/23 P(R)-R, EU:C:2023:293), the Vice-President of the Court of Justice granted the requests for confidential treatment referred to in paragraph 16 of the present order.
19      On 4 April 2023, the Commission decided, following the order of the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of 14 March 2023, Telefónica de España v Commission (C‑141/23 P(R)-R, EU:C:2023:292), to cancel the call for tenders DIGIT/A 3/PR/2019/010, pursuant to
Article 171 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).
20      On 5 April 2023, the Commission requested the Court of Justice to declare that there was no longer any need to adjudicate in Cases C‑141/23 P(R) and C‑141/23 P(R)-R.
21      On 14 April 2023, Telefónica de España submitted its observations on those requests and asked the Court of Justice to order the Commission to pay all the costs.
22      By order of 3 May 2023, Telefónica de España v Commission (C‑141/23 P(R), EU:C:2023:389), the Vice-President of the Court of Justice declared that there was no need to adjudicate in Case C‑141/23 P(R) and ordered the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Telefónica de España in the appeal proceedings in that case as
well as the costs incurred in the interim measures proceedings in Case C‑141/23 P(R)-R.
23      Since no agreement was reached between Telefónica de España and the Commission on the amount of recoverable costs, Telefónica de España made the present application.
Forms of order sought
24      Telefónica de España claims that the Court should:
–        fix the amount of recoverable costs in respect of the proceedings in Cases C‑141/23 P(R) and C‑141/23 P(R)-R (‘the proceedings in question’) at EUR 166 533.75, plus default interest, and
–        fix the amount of costs incurred in the present taxation of costs proceedings at EUR 20 000, plus default interest.
25      The Commission contends that the Court should:
–        fix the amount of recoverable costs in respect of the proceedings in question at a maximum of EUR 9 300, and
–        order Telefónica de España to bear the costs of the present proceedings or, in the alternative, set a reasonable amount in respect of those costs to be paid by the Commission.
Arguments of the parties
26      Telefónica de España states that it provided the breakdown of the costs claimed in respect of the proceedings in question, and the justification for those costs, in Annex A.18 to its application and that the invoices provided in Annex A.19 to the application show that those amounts have been paid. In addition, it seeks payment of the costs incurred in the present proceedings. In its view, those various amounts constitute recoverable costs within the meaning of Article 144 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.
27      In the first place, as regards the costs incurred in the proceedings in question, Telefónica de España considers, in respect of the subject matter and nature of those proceedings, that the latter concern a complex and highly technical situation involving a number of new legal issues.
28      In its view, first, those proceedings raised new issues concerning public procurement law, the applicable rules also
having
to be interpreted specifically according to the circumstances of the case. In that regard, Telefónica de España refers in particular to the Commission’s assessment in respect of the scoring of its tender. It states that, in the context of the second appeal, it put forward nine grounds of appeal, which concern, inter alia, new legal issues such as those relating to the interpretation of Article 151 of Regulation 2018/1046, that article concerning, inter alia, the correction of application documents; the linguistic regime applicable to tenders; the concept of ‘added value’; Telefónica de España’s rights of defence; access to information relating to the award of the contract to BT Global Services Belgium, and the principle of equal treatment.
29      Second, the proceedings in question concern, in Telefónica de España’s view, serious errors as regards the interim measures system and, in particular, the conditions relating to the existence of a particularly serious prima facie case. Moreover, new issues, relating to the admissibility of certain pleas relied on by Telefónica de España, were examined in the context of the second appeal.
30      Third, Telefónica de España claims that the issues relating to the
interim measures system that were addressed in the proceedings in question are of considerable importance since they led the Court of Justice to clarify the impact of the 10-day standstill period provided for in Article 175 of Regulation 2018/1046 on the assessment of the criterion of urgency.
31      For the same reasons, Telefónica de España maintains that the dispute in the proceedings in question is also of particular significance with regard to EU law.
32      As regards Telefónica de España’s financial interest in those proceedings, it is very significant since the value of the contract at issue is estimated at EUR 423 million. Moreover, it claims that there are no other equivalent contracts at national or European level.
33      Telefónica de España also submits that the hours of work that were invoiced were necessary in view of the technical and legal complexity of the case and its significance. In that regard, Telefónica de España explains that the costs claimed in respect of the proceedings in question correspond to a total of 185.5 hours for the preparation of the appeal in Case C‑141/23 P(R) and the preparation of the application for interim measures in Case C‑141/23 P(R)-R, to a total of 20.25 hours for the preparation of the request for confidential treatment and the assessment of the ‘ex parte’ interim measures order, and to a total of 9.75 hours for the drafting of its observations on the Commission’s applications for a declaration that there was no need to adjudicate in Cases C‑141/23 P(R) and C‑141/23 P(R)-R.
34      Telefónica de España adds that it was necessary to use a team of lawyers in order to respond to the urgency of the applications for interim measures. It states, in that regard, that it saw to it that those lawyers had different levels of seniority in order to ensure that the amount of costs claimed was not disproportionate.
35      As regards the hourly rates applied, Telefónica de España maintains that they are reasonable and disputes the Commission’s assertion, made in the context of the exchange of letters which preceded the present application for taxation of costs, that an hourly rate of EUR 235 or less should be regarded as appropriate for lawyers involved in public procurement matters.
36      In the second place, as regards the costs incurred in the present taxation of costs proceedings, Telefónica de España maintains that the amount of EUR 20 000 claimed is justified by the significant work required to categorise all the tasks carried out throughout the proceedings in question and is justified by the preparation for
the taxation of costs proceedings.
37      In the third and last place, Telefónica de España submits that default interest will be payable to it for the period between the date of service of the taxation of costs order and the date of actual reimbursement of those costs.
38      The Commission, for its part, states, as a preliminary point, that the application for taxation of costs was preceded by a single exchange of letters between the parties and observes that the applicant did not attach to that application the letter which it had sent to the Commission in that regard.
39      The Commission maintains, in the first place, that part of the amount of EUR 166 533.75, excluding value added tax, claimed by Telefónica de España, cannot be regarded as justified under Article 144 of the Rules of Procedure in the absence of documents enabling the time and resources allegedly invested by its lawyers to be verified in relation to the work actually carried out. Neither Telefónica de España’s appeal in Case C‑141/23 P(R) nor its application for confidential treatment made in the same case was attached to its application for taxation of costs. In the Commission’s view, it is not for it or the Court of Justice to produce those documents or to search for them. Accordingly, it contends that the applicant has not substantiated its request for reimbursement of the amounts of EUR 143 240 and EUR 13 963 which have been
claimed in that regard and in respect of the assessment of the ‘ex parte’ interim measures;
those amounts should, consequently, in its view, be regarded as irrecoverable.
40      Furthermore, it argues that those omissions cannot be ‘justified’ or ‘excused’ in the context of the assessment of the claim for reimbursement of the costs relating to the present taxation of costs proceedings.
41      The Commission contends, in the second place, that those costs cannot, in any event, be regarded as justified in the light of the assessment criteria laid down in the case-law of the Court of Justice.
42      In that respect, as regards the subject matter and nature of the proceedings, the Commission notes that the present application for taxation of costs concerns only the costs relating to Cases C‑141/23 P(R) and C‑141/23 P(R)-R, so that any reference to legal issues raised in other proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice is irrelevant for the assessment of the complexity and significance of the proceedings in question.
43      In addition, by the second appeal, Telefónica de España sought to have set aside the order of 28 February 2023, Telefónica de España v Commission (T‑170/22 R-RENV, EU:T:2023:89), by which the General Court dismissed its applications for interim measures, the examination of which is not particularly complex in law. The legal arguments put forward by Telefónica de España in that case are rather standard and correspond to what can be expected in the context of that type of action in relation to public procurement. According to the Commission, in the context of the second appeal, with the exception of the first ground of appeal, which concerned the condition of a prima facie case, the other eight grounds of appeal concerned, in essence, recurrent issues in disputes brought before the EU judicature relating to public procurement.
44      As regards Telefónica de España’s financial interest in the proceedings in question, it is, in the Commission’s view, relative and cannot be described as ‘significant’. In any event, the finding of such an interest cannot constitute a sufficient reason to justify the reimbursement of manifestly excessive costs.
45      As regards the amount of work carried out, the Commission maintains that the costs claimed are manifestly excessive and without adequate justification.
46      The hourly rates invoiced are, according to the Commission, abnormally high. In that regard, it observes that, in the absence of a scale, if the average hourly rate invoiced appears manifestly excessive, the Court of Justice may depart from it and fix ex aequo et bono the amount of recoverable lawyers’ fees. That, in the Commission’s view, is the case here, since it is apparent from the application for taxation of costs that the hourly rates invoiced correspond to EUR 1 510 for a ‘partner’, EUR 1 205 for ‘counsel’, EUR 630 for an ‘associate’ and EUR 551 for a ‘paralegal’, whereas the average hourly rates applied in public procurement cases should not exceed EUR 200 to 250.
47      As regards the number of hours of work invoiced, the Commission submits, citing the order of 4 March 2021, Schmid v Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (C‑514/18 P-DEP, EU:C:2021:180, paragraph 42), that the fact that remuneration at that rate is taken into account requires in return a strict assessment of the total number of hours’ work necessary for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.
48      The amount of the fees claimed in respect of the stated numerous lawyer positions is, according to the Commission, excessive in view, in particular, of the many overlaps between, on the one hand, the arguments put forward in the appeal in Case C‑141/23 P(R) and in the application for interim measures made in Case C‑141/23 P(R)-R and, on the other hand, the arguments put forward in the application for interim measures made in Case T‑170/22 R and those set out in the observations submitted in Case T‑170/22 R-RENV. Thus, the Commission considers that Telefónica de España’s lawyers acquired in-depth knowledge of the case in the sets of proceedings before the General Court, which facilitated their work and enabled them to reduce the working time spent on the proceedings in question.
49      Similarly, the hours of work devoted to case-law research concerning interim measures ordered in the context of public procurement procedures and concerning appeals brought against decisions ruling on applications for interim measures are not, in the Commission’s view, justified since the appeal brought against the order of 28 February 2023, Telefónica de España v Commission (T‑170/22 R-RENV, EU:T:2023:89), constitutes the second appeal.
50      It follows that the amount of EUR 143 240, cited on page 218 of Annex A.18 to the application for taxation of costs, corresponding to the hours of work invoiced in respect of the drafting of the second appeal and the drafting of the application for interim measures in Case C‑141/23 P(R)-R, should, in the Commission’s view, be considerably reduced and that, in any event, the costs relating to the hours invoiced for the purposes of that case-law research, which represent more than 13 hours, should be regarded as irrecoverable. It argues that the same should apply to the invoicing of 6.25 hours for the preparation of the hearings before the Court of Justice, corresponding to an amount of EUR 3 890, since those hearings did not take place.
51      Lastly, as regards the costs relating to the taxation of costs proceedings, the amount of which is estimated at EUR 20 000, the Commission submits that an application for taxation of costs is of a fairly standardised nature and is characterised, generally, by the absence of any difficulty for the lawyer who has already dealt with the substance of the case.
52      Consequently, the amount claimed in that respect is, in the Commission’s view, manifestly excessive given that, first, most of the tasks required in that context, such as the encoding of time sheets, merely required a consultation of the law firm’s databases and, second, the present application for taxation of costs is almost identical to that lodged in Case T‑170/22 DEP, relating to the recoverable costs in respect of the proceedings in Cases T‑170/22, T‑170/22 R, C‑478/22 P(R), C‑478/22 P(R)-R and T‑170/22 R-RENV; in the context of that application, the applicant has already sought the payment of EUR 80 000.
53      In any event, the Commission contends that that amount of EUR 20 000 is not justified by any document relating to the time spent, inter alia, on drafting the present application for taxation of costs.
Findings of the Court
The costs relating to the proceedings in question and to the taxation of costs proceedings
54      Under Article 144(b) of the Rules of Procedure, which is applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) of those rules, ‘expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings, in particular the travel and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of agents, advisers or lawyers’ are to be regarded as recoverable costs.
55      As is apparent from the wording of Article 144(b), the remuneration of a lawyer is one of the expenses necessarily incurred within the meaning of that provision. It also follows from that wording that recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court, and, second, to those which were necessary for that purpose (order of 21 October 2024, Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission, C‑211/20 P-DEP, EU:C:2024:912, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited).
56      Furthermore, in fixing the recoverable costs, the Court is to take account of all the circumstances of the case up to the making of the order on taxation of costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred in relation to the taxation of costs proceedings (order of 21 October 2024, Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission, C‑211/20 P-DEP, EU:C:2024:912, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).
57      According to settled case-law, the EU Courts are not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers, but rather may determine the amount of those fees to be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs (order of 21 October 2024, Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission, C‑211/20 P-DEP, EU:C:2024:912, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).
58      In the absence of provisions of EU law laying down fee scales or relating to the necessary working time, the Court must make an unfettered assessment of the facts of the case, taking into account the subject matter and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of EU law as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the case for the agents or advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings (order of 21 October 2024, Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission, C‑211/20 P-DEP, EU:C:2024:912, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).
59      It is in the light of those considerations that the amount of the recoverable costs in the present case must be assessed.
60      As regards, in the first place, the subject matter and nature of the dispute, it should be noted that the proceedings which are the subject of the application for taxation of costs concern only applications for interim measures brought by Telefónica de España in order to protect its interests pending the examination of the substantive dispute brought before the General Court concerning the decision at issue, in Case T‑170/22.
61      In addition, the present case concerns the taxation of the costs incurred by Telefónica de España in Cases C‑141/23 P(R) and C‑141/23 P(R)-R and not the costs relating to Cases T‑170/22 R, C‑478/22 P(R), C‑478/22 P(R)-R and T‑170/22 R-RENV.
62      In the second place, as regards the significance of the dispute from the point of view of EU law and the difficulties presented by the issues examined in the context of the proceedings in question, Telefónica de España claims that new and delicate legal issues had to be examined both in the field of public procurement and in relation to the  system of interim measures.
63      However, it is not apparent from the file submitted to the Court that the second appeal concerns complex legal issues. It appears that the first ground of appeal relied on by Telefónica de España in the context of that appeal concerns the concept of a ‘prima facie case’, the eight other grounds of appeal referring, in essence, to errors of law allegedly made, in the order of 28 February 2023, Telefónica de España v Commission (T‑170/22 R-RENV, EU:T:2023:89), as regards the admissibility of certain parts of its application for interim measures, the obligation to state reasons and the Commission’s evaluation of its tender.
64      As regards the question of whether, as Telefónica de España claims, the proceedings in question concerned legal issues of principle regarding the system of interim measures, and more specifically concerned the condition relating to urgency, suffice it to state that those issues were dealt with in Case C‑478/22 P(R), whereas the present application for taxation of costs concerns only the costs incurred by Telefónica de España in Cases C‑141/23 P(R) and C‑141/23 P(R)-R. Furthermore, it does not appear that the proceedings in question raise legal issues of particular significance as regards the system of interim measures.
65      Furthermore, it is not disputed that the drafting both of the applications for confidential treatment lodged in the proceedings in question and of the observations on the applications for a declaration that there was no need to adjudicate did not give rise to any difficulties.
66      In the third place, in respect of the financial interests concerned, the dispute which gave rise to the proceedings in question and which relates to the award of a contract estimated at EUR 423 million was of clear financial interest to Telefónica de España.
67      In the fourth place, as regards the amount of work carried out by Telefónica de España’s advisers, it is apparent from Annex A.18 to the application for taxation of costs that that company included, in the calculation of the amount of the costs which it seeks to recover in respect of the proceedings in question, the fees of several advisers, corresponding to a total working time of 215.50 hours invoiced on the basis of hourly rates fixed at EUR 1 510 for a ‘partner’, EUR 1 205 for ‘counsel’, EUR 630 for an ‘associate’ and EUR 551 for a ‘paralegal’.
68      In that regard, it must be noted that, while, in principle, the remuneration of only one agent, adviser or lawyer is recoverable, it is possible that, depending on the individual circumstances and, most importantly, the complexity of each case, the fees of a number of lawyers may be considered ‘expenses necessarily incurred’ within the meaning of Article 144(b) of the Rules of Procedure (order of 21 October 2024, Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission, C‑211/20 P-DEP, EU:C:2024:912, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited).
69      It follows that, when fixing the amount of the recoverable costs, the Court must take account of the total number of hours of work which may appear to be objectively necessary for the purpose of the proceedings, irrespective of the number of lawyers amongst whom the work was shared (order of 21 October 2024, Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission, C‑211/20 P-DEP, EU:C:2024:912, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited).
70      Furthermore, the Court has already held that lawyers whose services are invoiced at hourly rates of between EUR 300 and EUR 450 depending on the lawyer concerned must demonstrate high levels of qualification and experience in the legal field in question and are presumed to handle the cases entrusted to them, including those that are somewhat complex, efficiently and speedily. Accordingly, the fact that remuneration at that rate is taken into account requires in return a strict assessment of the total number of hours’ work necessary for the purposes of the proceedings in question (see, to that effect, order of 21 October 2024, Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission, C‑211/20 P-DEP, EU:C:2024:912, paragraph 56 and the case-law cited).
71      In the present case, it must be noted that, as regards the interim measures proceedings, the amount of work necessary for bringing them must be assessed in the light, in particular, of the fact that the matters of fact and of law on the basis of which those proceedings were initiated had already been analysed in part when the action for annulment was drafted (see, to that effect, order of 3 September 2009, Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission, C‑326/05 P-DEP, EU:C:2009:497, paragraph 54).
72      In addition, account must also be taken of the fact that, as follows from paragraphs 7 to 13 of the present order, applications for interim measures such as that submitted by Telefónica de España in Case C‑141/23 P(R)-R had already been brought before the General Court and before the Court of Justice, in Cases T‑170/22 R, C‑478/22 P(R), C‑478/22 P(R)-R and T‑170/22 R-RENV.
73      In that context, Telefónica de España’s advisers already had a thorough knowledge of the case, which was capable of facilitating their work and of reducing the time to be spent on studying and drafting the second appeal and their application for interim measures in the proceedings in question (see, to that effect, order of 17 May 2024, DEI v Mytilinaios, C‑332/18 P-DEP, EU:C:2024:422, paragraph 43).
74      In particular, both the arguments relied on in the second appeal in Case C‑141/23 P(R) and in the application for interim measures in Case C‑141/23 P(R)-R and those set out in the cases referred to in paragraph 72 of the present order necessarily overlapped at least in part.
75      It should also be borne in mind that, as stated in paragraphs 63 and 64 of the present order, the proceedings in question did not raise complex legal issues or issues of particular significance as regards the system of interim measures.
76      In the light of the foregoing findings, it appears that the drafting of the second appeal in Case C‑141/23 P(R) and of the application for interim measures in Case C‑141/23 P(R)-R likely represented an average workload.
77      As regards the drafting of the requests for confidential treatment submitted by Telefónica de España in the context of the proceedings in question and the drafting of its observations on the Commission’s applications for a declaration that there was no need to adjudicate in those proceedings, it is common ground that such drafting did not involve a particularly significant workload.
78      Moreover, since no hearing was held in the context of the proceedings in question, Telefónica de España’s advisers were not required to plead before the Court or, therefore, to prepare any oral intervention.
79      In those circumstances, the number of hours of work invoiced in respect of the proceedings in question, namely 215.50 hours, corresponding to fees in the amount of EUR 166 533.75 based on the hourly rates applied, appears largely to exceed what may be regarded as having been objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings in question.
80      Lastly, as regards the costs relating to the present taxation of costs proceedings, it is sufficient to note that, apart from the fact that the sum of EUR 20 000 claimed by Telefónica de España has not been detailed in any way, an application for taxation of costs is of a rather standard nature and is characterised, in principle, by the absence of any difficulty (order of 17 May 2024, DEI v Mytilinaios, C‑332/18 P-DEP, EU:C:2024:422, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).
81      Accordingly, that sum also appears excessive and cannot be regarded as having been objectively necessary for the purposes of the present proceedings.
82      In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the Court considers that the costs recoverable by the applicant from the Commission, relating to Cases C‑141/23 P(R) and C‑141/23 P(R)-R and to the present taxation of costs proceedings, will be fairy assessed by fixing their total amount at EUR 35 800.
Default interest
83      The claim for default interest for the period from the date of service of the present order to the date of actual reimbursement of the costs must be granted. As regards the applicable interest rate, it must be calculated on the basis of the rate applied by the European Central Bank (ECB) to its main refinancing operations in force on the first day of the month in which payment is due, which is the date of service of the present order, increased by three and a half percentage points (see, by analogy, order of 8 July 2025, Land Rheinland-Pfalz v Deutsche Lufthansa, C‑453/19 P‑DEP, EU:C:2025:539, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited).
On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby orders:
1.      The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the European Commission to Telefónica de España SA in Cases C‑141/23 P(R) and C‑141/23 P(R)-R is fixed at EUR 35 800.
2.      That amount shall bear interest at a rate equal to that applied by the European Central Bank (ECB) to its main refinancing operations in force on the first day of the month in which payment is due, which is the date of service of the present order, increased by three and a half percentage points, to run from that date until payment in full of the costs.
Luxembourg, 20 November 2025.
A. Calot Escobar
I. Ziemele
Registrar
President of the Chamber
*      Language of the case: English.