Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 102(2))

2. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Factors to be taken into consideration

3. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Factors to be taken into consideration

Summary

1. Under Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of proceedings before a Community Court and, second, to those which were necessary for that purpose. Expenses incurred in respect of travel to Luxembourg for the purpose of lodging pleadings cannot be regarded as necessary, in view of the fact that, on the one hand, the Community legislature has provided, in Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure, for the time-limit to be extended on account of distance, while, on the other, there are other reliable and clearly less onerous means of transmitting documents to a Community Court.

(see paras 42, 79 and 80)

2. In the absence of Community 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 Community law, as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the proceedings for the agents and advisers involved and the financial interests which the parties had in the proceedings.

In an action relating to the non-performance of conditions in respect of the grant of financial assistance and also concerning interference by the Commission prior to and during the applicant’s performance of the subsidised project, the need to establish the precise circumstances of that interference, and to examine fully the consequences of this in resolving the dispute, does to some extent create specific difficulties which set this case apart from other cases regarding non-performance of conditions for the grant of financial assistance.

In that regard, there is some degree of novelty in this dispute and it is therefore of some significance from the point of view of Community law, in so far as it has clarified the division of the burden of proof between the parties to a dispute where the Commission interferes in the execution of a subsidised project in respect of which, moreover, the Commission pleads there has been culpable non-performance.

(see paras 45, 53-56)

3. In assessing the extent of the work generated by the judicial proceedings, it is for the Community Court to take into account the work objectively required for the whole of the judicial proceedings. However, where a party’s lawyers have already assisted that party during proceedings or procedures prior to the relevant action, it is also necessary to have regard to the fact that those lawyers are aware of matters relevant to the action, which is likely to have facilitated their work and reduced the preparation time required for the judicial proceedings. Conversely, in assessing the recoverable costs, the assistance of lawyers during the pre-litigation stage is not to be taken into account where it is shown that such assistance is not relevant to the litigation stage.

(see paras 59 and 60)