ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

25 June 1998

Joined Cases T-177/94 (92) and T-377/94 (92) and Case T-99/95 (92)

Henk Altmann and Others [Joined Cases T-177/94 (92) and T-377/94 (92)] and Peter Esmond Stott [Case T-99/95 (92)]

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Taxation of costs’

Full text in English II-883

Application for:

taxation of costs following the judgments of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-177/94 and T-377/94 Altmann and Others v Commission [1996] ECR II-2041 and in Case T-99/95 Stott v Commission [1996] ECR II-2227.

Decision:

The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the Commission to the applicants is fixed in the sum of UKL 15000, together with any VAT payable thereon.

Abstract of the Order

On 10 April 1997, the applicants in Joined Cases T-177/94 and T-377/94 and the applicant in Case T-99/95, all members of the staff of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (‘the UKAEA’) assigned to the Joint European Torus Joint Undertaking (‘JET’), sent the Commission, following judgments by the Court of First Instance annulling the Commission's decision of 14 January 1994 refusing to appoint them as members of its temporary staff, statements of their lawyers' fees, with a covering letter in which they claimed payment of a total of UKL 37060.41 in recoverable costs.

By letter of 20 May 1997, the Commission replied to the applicants that it was willing to pay them a total of BFR 500000 - equivalent at that date to UKL 8621 - in respect of recoverable costs.

By application lodged at the Court Registry on 13 October 1997 and registered as Cases T-177/94 (92), T-377/94 (92) and T-99/95 (92), the applicants requested the Court of First Instance to make an order fixing UKL 30000 as the amount of their recoverable costs.

Substance

Under Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, ‘expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings, in particular the travel and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of agents, advisers or lawyers’, are regarded as recoverable costs. Recoverable costs within the meaning of that provision are thus confined, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court, to the exclusion of those relating to the pre-litigation procedure, and, secondly, to those which are indispensable for such purposes (paragraphs 17 and 18).

See: C-222/92 DEP SFEIand Others v Commission [1994] ECR I-5431, para. 12; T-84/91 DEP Meskens v Parliament [1993] ECR II-757, para. 14; C-89/95 DEP Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 14

Moreover, in the absence of Community provisions laying down fee scales, the Community judicature 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 dispute for the agents and advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings. In so doing, it is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers' fees or any agreement concluded in that regard between the party concerned and his agents or advisers (paragraph 19).

See: 318/82 Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek v Commission [1985] ECR 3727, paras 2 and 3; T-561/93 (92) Tierce Ladbroke v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 22

Finally, the extent to which the Community judicature can assess the value of a lawyer's work depends on the degree of detail of the information provided.

See: Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v Commission, cited above, para. 20

On that basis, it must be held, first of all, that the costs and fees incurred by the applicants during the pre-litigation stages do not form recoverable costs. Thus, for the periods prior to the dates on which their respective actions were brought, the applicants may claim only the reimbursement of the costs incurred for the drafting of their applications (paragraph 21).

See: SFEI and Others v Commission, cited above, para. 12; Meskens v Parliament, cited above, para. 14

Secondly, with regard to the costs incurred during the course of the litigation itself, the Court notes that these cases may have given rise to real difficulties in the light of the unusual status of the entity for which the applicants were assigned to work and to the burden of analysing the various factual considerations with a view to justifying a reexamination of the solution adopted by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Joined Cases 271/83, 15/84, 36/84, 113/84, 158/84, 203/84, and 13/85 Ainsworth and Others v Commission and Council [1987] ECR 167. In addition, the disputes involved issues of not inconsiderable economic importance for the Community, since they affected more than 70 applicants and the employment status of over 200 staff. The cases could therefore warrant the payment of remuneration at a relatively higher level than that charged by lawyers or advisers to parties to other similar litigation (paragraph 22).

Thirdly, even though, in principle, only the remuneration of a single lawyer may be regarded as falling within the concept of ‘expenses necessarily incurred’ within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure, the primary consideration is none the less the total number of hours of work which may appear necessary for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court, irrespective of the number of lawyers who may have provided the services in question (paragraph 23).

See: 20/63 and 21/63 Maudet v Commission [1964] ECR 621; T-78/89 DEP PPG Industries Glass v Commission [1993] ECR II-573, para. 39

However, it is also true that the cases in question here relate to Community staff litigation, and expenses incurred for the services of a second lawyer or adviser may thus only exceptionally be recoverable. In the present instance, the Court considers that the entire remuneration of a second lawyer cannot be considered to constitute ‘expenses necessarily incurred’ within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure (paragraph 24).

Furthermore, the similarity between the cases and the fact that they were connected necessarily meant that the amount of work involved in representing the parties was considerably reduced. In those circumstances, the Court considers it appropriate to fix the recoverable fees and expenses in Joined Cases T-177/94 and T-377/94 and in Case T-99/95 in the total sum of UKL 15000, together with any VAT payable thereon (paragraphs 25 and 26).

Operative part:

The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the Commission to the applicants is fixed in the sum of UKL 15000, together with any VAT payable thereon.

Taxation of costs (ORDER OF 25. 6. 1998 - JOINED CASES T-177/94 (92) AND T-377/94 (92) AND CASE T-99/95 (92) - ALTMANN AND OTHERS v COMMISSION) II-883