Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure ° Costs ° Action for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the application of the milk quota system ° Withdrawn following acceptance of the offer of compensation subsequently received pursuant to Regulation No 2187/93 providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade ° Criteria for ordering the other party to pay the costs satisfied

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5); Council Regulation No 2187/93)

2. Procedure ° Costs ° Withdrawal justified by the attitude of the other party ° Role of the Court

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5))

3. Procedure ° Costs ° Taxation ° Matters to be taken into consideration

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 92(1))

Summary

1. Since proceedings brought by a milk producer against the Commission for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the application of certain provisions of the milk quota system were commenced before the Council and the Commission acknowledged their liability by publishing a communication in the Official Journal of the European Communities and before they undertook, with a view to a planned global settlement, not to plead prescription, that is to say, at a time when the applicant could not be certain of receiving compensation, even in the absence of proceedings, it is appropriate, pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 87(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, to order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant, who withdrew his proceedings after accepting the offer of compensation subsequently received pursuant to Regulation No 2187/93 providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade.

The applicant was justified in principle in bringing an action and, since Article 178 of the Treaty does not provide for any pre-litigation procedure to be followed at an administrative level prior to the commencement of an action for damages, he cannot be blamed for the fact that, before bringing proceedings, he did not first call upon the Commission not to plead prescription. It was for the Commission to take, at a sufficiently early stage, the necessary steps to provide legal clarification for all persons who had suffered damage so as to remove any cause for the institution of proceedings.

2. The Court' s decision on costs in the event of withdrawal from proceedings must be based solely on the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, and in particular on Article 87(5). Apart from those provisions, there are no other rules of law which affect the question as to who should bear the costs. In particular, even where there is an agreement on costs between the parties, such an agreement is to be taken into consideration only if it is expressly confirmed by the parties to the Court in statements made by them when the proceedings are withdrawn. It is not for the Court to enquire, in the context of its decision, whether any other arrangements as to costs may have been agreed between the parties independently of such statements. In the final analysis, a decision on costs made pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure determines only who should bear the costs, not the amount of the costs to be recovered; the latter issue is to be determined, in the event of any dispute, under the procedure provided for in Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

3. Where costs are taxed pursuant to Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the task of the Community judicature is not to determine the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but to fix the maximum amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. It follows that the Court is not obliged to take into consideration, inter alia, any national scale of lawyers' fees or any agreement on fees concluded between the party concerned and his agents or advisers. It is in the context of the independent assessment by the Court of the circumstances of the case that it is necessary to determine the relevance of matters such as the fact that the party ordered to pay the costs of his opponent has already paid the latter a sum by way of reimbursement of lawyers' fees incurred and the question as to the adequacy of that sum, having regard to the care and attention which the case has required.