ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Single Judge)

27 June 2013

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

‛Civil service — Procedure — Taxation of costs’

Application:

for taxation of recoverable costs under Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure, in which the European Commission applied to the Tribunal for taxation of the costs in Case F‑40/06 Marcuccio v Commission under Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Held:

The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Mr Marcuccio to the European Commission in respect of the recoverable costs in Case F‑40/06 Marcuccio v Commission is fixed at EUR 3 280.

Summary

The rule laid down in the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, that the parties must be represented by a lawyer in proceedings before the Courts of the Union, applies not only to the main proceedings in civil service cases, but also to related procedures such as applications for taxation of costs. That being so, the Civil Service Tribunal cannot be criticised for having sent an application for taxation of costs to a party’s lawyer where that party was represented by that lawyer in the main proceedings. The party having thus been given the opportunity to submit its observations in accordance with Article 92(1) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the audi alteram partem rule was fully observed. (see paras 17-18)

In respect of a dispute as to the costs, within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, none of the provisions of those Rules of Procedure requires a party to submit documentary evidence in support of its claims at the initial contact stage preceding the submission of an application for taxation of costs. (see para. 28)

It follows from Article 91(b) 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 Civil Service Tribunal and, second, to those which were necessary for that purpose. 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 an institution instructed an external lawyer 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. (see paras 35-36) See: 23 March 2012, T‑498/09 P-DEP Kerstens v Commission, para. 13; 28 May 2013, T‑278/07 P-DEP Marcuccio v Commission, para. 14 26 April 2010, F‑7/08 DEP Schönberger v Parliament, para. 23

The Union 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 Union 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 Union 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. Finally, the amount of an institution’s lawyer’s fees that are recoverable cannot be evaluated without taking into consideration the work carried out, even before the matter was brought before the Tribunal, by the legal services of the institution concerned. Since the admissibility of an action is subject to the prior introduction of a complaint and its rejection by the appointing authority, the legal services of the institution are in principle involved in dealing with disputes even before such disputes are brought before the Tribunal. (see paras 37-39) See: 10 November 2009, F‑14/08 DEP X v Parliament, para. 22; Schönberger v Parliament, para. 24; 27 September 2011, F‑55/08 DEP De Nicola v EIB, para. 41