In that regard, as is apparent from the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable before the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 7(1) of Annex I to that Statute, the institutions are free to have recourse to the assistance of a lawyer. The latter’s remuneration is therefore covered by the concept of expenses necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings, without the institution being required to show that such assistance was objectively warranted. Therefore, whilst the fact that the Commission instructed two agents and an external lawyer in the main proceedings and in the interlocutory proceedings has no impact on the possible recoverability of those costs, since there is nothing to preclude such recovery in principle, it may have an impact on the determination of the amount of costs incurred for the purposes of the proceedings which may ultimately be recovered.

In fixing the recoverable costs, the Tribunal takes 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.

It follows from Article 105(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal that recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Tribunal and, second, to those which were necessary for that purpose.

The EU judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers, but to determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. When ruling on an application for taxation of costs, it is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers’ fees or any agreement in that regard between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.

Moreover, in the absence of EU provisions laying down fee scales, the court must make an unfettered assessment of the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of EU law, 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.

In order to determine, on the basis of those criteria, whether the costs actually incurred for the purposes of the proceedings were necessary, precise information must be supplied by the applicant. Similarly, the fixed nature of the remuneration has no effect on the Tribunal’s assessment of the amount recoverable by way of costs, since it bases its decisions on well-established criteria laid down by case-law and precise information which the parties must provide to it. Whilst the absence of such information does not prevent the Tribunal fixing the amount of recoverable costs on the basis of an equitable assessment, it none the less places it in a situation where its assessment of the applicant’s claims must necessarily be strict.

(see paras 26, 27, 32, 37)

See:

Order of 17 February 2004 in DAI v ARAP and Others, C‑321/99 P-DEP, EU:C:2004:103, para. 23

Orders of 31 March 2011 in Tetra Laval v Commission, T‑5/02 DEP and T‑80/02 DEP, EU:T:2011:129, para. 68, and of 28 May 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑278/07 P-DEP, EU:T:2013:269, para. 16

Orders of 10 November 2009 in X v Parliament, F‑14/08 DEP, EU:F:2009:149, para. 22; of 26 April 2010 in Schönberger v Parliament, F‑7/08 DEP, EU:F:2010:32, para. 24, and of 27 September 2011 in De Nicola v EIB, F‑55/08 DEP, EU:F:2011:155, paras 40 and 41