ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

11 December 2014

Pavlos Longinidis

v

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)

‛Procedure — Taxation of costs — Lawyers’ fees — Representation of an EU body by a lawyer — Flat rate of remuneration — Agent’s travel and subsistence expenses — Translation costs — Recoverable costs — Applicant’s financial situation’

Application:

for taxation of costs, brought under Article 9 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union by Mr Pavlos Longinidis further to the judgment of 7 July 2011 in Longinidis v Cedefop (T‑283/08 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2011:338).

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Mr Pavlos Longinidis to the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) is fixed at EUR 6 300.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Taxation on the basis of specific information provided by the applicant or, in the absence thereof, on the basis of an equitable assessment by the EU judicature — Fixed nature of a lawyer’s remuneration — Not relevant to the court’s discretion

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 91(b))

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Concept — Fees paid by an EU institution, body, office or agency to its lawyer — Included — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment between applicants as a result of recourse to a lawyer’s services in some cases but not others — None

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Concept — Elements to be taken into consideration — Financial situation of the party ordered to pay the costs — Not included

Under Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, if there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the General Court, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposite party, is to make an order, from which no appeal lies. Thus, in order to avoid rendering nugatory the procedure laid down in that provision, which serves to achieve a definitive ruling on the costs of the proceedings, it cannot be that a dispute for the purposes of that provision can be deemed to arise only when the party who has been requested to reimburse the costs advanced by the successful party provides an explicit, comprehensive refusal. (see paras 12, 13) See: Order of 25 March 2014 in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑126/11 P-DEP, EU:T:2014:171, para. 13

It follows from Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court that recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the General Court and, secondly, to those which were necessary for that purpose. In that regard, 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 fixing the recoverable costs, the Court 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. However, the financial situation of the party ordered to pay the costs is not one of the criteria in the light of which the amount of recoverable costs is fixed by the EU judicature in proceedings for taxation of costs. (see paras 19-21, 67) See: Orders of 28 June 2004 in Airtours v Commission, T‑342/99 DEP, ECR EU:T:2004:192, para. 18; 31 March 2011 in Tetra Laval v Commission, T‑5/02 DEP and T‑80/02 DEP, EU:T:2011:129, para. 53, and 23 March 2012 in Kerstens v Commission, T‑498/09 P-DEP, EU:T:2012:147, paras 13 to 15

It is apparent from the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable before the General Court pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, that when it comes to being represented or assisted before the Union judicature, the institutions of the European Union are free to have recourse to the assistance of a lawyer. For the purposes of the application of that provision of the Statute, EU bodies are to be equated with those institutions. Thus, whilst the fact that an EU body instructed an agent and an external lawyer has no impact on the possible recoverability of the costs at issue, 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 that regard, there is no question of an infringement of the principle of equal treatment between applicants in the event that the defending EU body decides to have recourse to the services of a lawyer in certain cases, whereas in others it is represented by its agents. Any other assessment which makes the right of an EU body to claim all or part of the fees paid to a lawyer subject to proof of an objective need to use that lawyer’s services would in fact constitute an indirect restriction on the freedom conferred by the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and entail for the EU judicature a duty to substitute its own assessment for that of the institutions and bodies responsible for the organisation of their departments. Such a task is compatible neither with the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, nor with the power to adopt rules for their own internal organisation enjoyed by the institutions and bodies of the European Union in relation to the management of their cases before the courts of the European Union. (see paras 24-26) See: Order of 10 October 2013 in CPVO v Schräder, C‑38/09 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:679, paras 20 to 22 and the case-law cited therein Order of 28 May 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑278/07 P-DEP, ECR, EU:T:2013:269, paras 14 and 15

See the text of the decision. (see paras 28, 31) See: Orders in Marcuccio v Commission, para. 25 supra, EU:T:2013:269, para. 20, and Marcuccio v Commission, EU:T:2014:171, para. 13 supra, paras 31 and 38 and the case-law cited therein

See the text of the decision. (see para. 50) See: Order of 20 January 2014 in Schönberger v Parliament, T‑186/11 DEP, EU:T:2014:40, para. 29 and the case-law cited therein