ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)
19 February 2004
Case T-300/97 DEP
Benito Latino
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Procedure ─ Taxation of costs)
Full text in French II - 0000
Application:         for taxation of costs following the judgment of the Court of 15 December 1999 in Case T-300/97 Latino v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-259 and II-1263.
Held:         The total amount of costs recoverable pursuant to the judgment of 15 December 1999 in Case T-300/97 Latino v Commission is set at EUR 11 000.
Summary
Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Concept – Factors to be taken into account – Costs arising from a change
of adviser during the procedure – Precluded except where the initial adviser could not be retained
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91)
Since Community law does not contain any provisions laying down a scale of fees, the Community judicature must consider, in
connection with the taxation of costs, all the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings,
their significance from the point of view of Community law, as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount
of work generated by the dispute for the agents and advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in
the proceedings. The Community judicature alone has jurisdiction to determine the amount owed by the losing party to the successful
party in recoverable costs. It need not take account of any national scale of fees for lawyers or of any agreement concluded
on the subject between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.
The costs and additional fees incurred by a party as a result of a change of adviser between the conclusion of the written
procedure and the hearing may be regarded as recoverable costs within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court of First Instance only if that change was justified by reasons which made it impossible for the initial adviser
to continue to perform his duties.
(see paras 12, 15, 19)
See: 318/82 DEP Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek v Commission [1985] ECR 3727, paras 2 and 3; T-94/96 DEP Hagleitner v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 11