Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Provisional text

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)

7 October 2025 ([\*](#Footnote*))

( Procedure – Taxation of costs – Expenses paid by a third party to the proceedings – Recoverability by a party )

In Case T‑25/23 DEP,

**Orgatex GmbH & Co. KG,** established in Langenfeld (Germany), represented by M. Maybaum, lawyer,

applicant,

v

**European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO),**

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being

**Lawrence Longton,** residing in Brindle (United Kingdom), represented by A. Haberl, lawyer,

THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed, at the time of the deliberations, of M.J. Costeira, President, M. Kancheva (Rapporteur) and E. Tichy-Fisslberger, Judges,

Registrar: V. Di Bucci,

having regard to the judgment of 23 October 2024, *Orgatex* v *EUIPO – Longton (Floor markings)* (T‑25/23, EU:T:2024:725),

having regard to the written part of the procedure, in particular the questions put by the Court to the applicant and the intervener and the replies of those parties, lodged at the General Court Registry on 11 and 2 June 2025 respectively,

makes the following

**Order**([1](#Footnote1))

…

**Law**

10      Under Article 170(3) of the Rules of Procedure, if there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, upon application by the interested party, the Court is to give its decision by way of an order, from which no appeal shall lie, after giving the party concerned by the application an opportunity to submit its observations.

11      According to Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure, ‘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 to be regarded as recoverable costs. It follows from that provision that recoverable costs are limited to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court and to those which were necessary for that purpose (see order of 6 March 2003, *Nan Ya Plastics and Far Eastern Textiles* v *Council*, T‑226/00 DEP and T‑227/00 DEP, EU:T:2003:61, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).

12      As a preliminary matter, the Court considers it appropriate to rule on whether the intervener is entitled to recover costs paid by a third party to the dispute.

***The recoverability by the intervener of costs paid by a third party to the proceedings***

13      In its observations on the application for the taxation of costs, the applicant argues that the expenses claimed by the intervener were incurred by a third party who did not participate in the main proceedings, namely the intervener’s employer, the company A, which is incorporated in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the intervener’s recoverable costs should not, in the applicant’s view, include those expenses, which were not incurred by the intervener. In that regard, the applicant argues that the concept of ‘party’ must be assessed in the light of the role of the person concerned in the proceedings, and not in the light of any economic interest of a third party behind the party itself.

…

19      The intervener disputes the applicant’s arguments. In his application for taxation of costs, he states that the invoices are made out in the name of his employer, company A, which was responsible for settling them with his legal representatives. Thus, the intervener is the debtor for the service and is only released from his obligation to arrange payment to those representatives as a result of his employer settling the invoices.

…

25      According to case-law, the expression ‘expenses incurred by the parties’ refers to the expenses arising from the proceedings in which the parties have participated. That expression therefore does not refer solely to the expenses that were actually borne by the parties. Thus, expenses incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court and necessary for that purpose are recoverable, even if they have, in fact, been paid by a person not party to the proceedings (see, to that effect, orders of 2 March 2009, *Fries Guggenheim* v *Cedefop*, T‑373/04 DEP, not published, EU:T:2009:43, paragraph 24, and of 21 December 2010, *Le Levant 015 and Others* v *Commission*, T‑34/02 DEP, EU:T:2010:559, paragraph 26).

26      In the present case, it should, first, be noted that the power of attorney (referred to as ‘Power of Attorney – Vollmacht’ and dated 1 March 2022) granted to Mr A. Haberl and Mr M. Körner and produced in Annex 1 to the intervener’s response in the main proceedings is signed by the intervener and not on behalf of company A, which was not a party to those proceedings. It follows that the intervener is the principal *ad litem* of those lawyers and, consequently, that he has incurred a debt of fees to them which is personal and specific to him.

27      Secondly, it should be noted that the invoices for lawyers’ fees produced by the intervener in Annex 2 to his application for taxation of costs were sent by his legal representatives to his employer, company A. That suggests that those fees were actually paid by that company, pursuant to an agreement between the intervener and the latter.

28      However, contrary to what the applicant alleges, in essence, the mere fact that the invoices of the intervener’s lawyers are addressed to company A, a third party to the main proceedings and a third party to the related mandate, has no bearing on the fact that it is the intervener, and not the addressee of those invoices, who is the principal *ad litem* (see paragraph 26 above). In that regard, the details of those invoices concerning the precise method of invoicing are irrelevant.

29      Thirdly, it should be noted that the invoices in question relate to costs incurred for the purposes of the main proceedings in which the parties, including the intervener, were involved, even though those costs were actually paid by a legal person that was not a party to the dispute, namely company A.

30      In the light of the case-law cited in paragraph 25 above, it must therefore be concluded that the expenses paid by company A are, in principle, recoverable by the intervener.

31      That finding cannot be called into question by the applicant’s arguments.

32      First, the question of the intervener’s own economic interest is irrelevant for the purposes of assessing whether the invoices in question actually relate to expenses incurred for the purposes of the main proceedings in which the parties, including the intervener, were involved.

33      Furthermore, it should be noted, as the intervener has pointed out, that the grounds for invalidity referred to in Article 25(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) may, in principle, be relied on by any person (judgment of 13 June 2019, *Visi/one* v *EUIPO – EasyFix (Display holder for vehicles)*, T‑74/18, EU:T:2019:417, paragraph 64), as they protect a public and general interest. That interest is, therefore, in any event, common to the intervener and to company A.

34      Secondly, the fact that the intervener did not participate in the hearing in the main proceedings is completely irrelevant, since, in accordance with Article 108(1) of the Rules of Procedure, a hearing may take place in the absence of an intervener before the Court, who is therefore free to participate or not.

35      Thirdly, the fact that the legal representatives reported not directly to the intervener, but indirectly to the latter through the intellectual property advisers who had previously represented him before EUIPO, since those advisers acted on behalf of the principal *ad litem*, namely the intervener, is also irrelevant. Furthermore, it has not been established, or even alleged by the applicant, that those legal representatives or advisers reported in any way to company A.

36      It must therefore be concluded that, in the circumstances of the present case, where the intervener is the principal *ad litem* and the person liable for his lawyers’ fees, the expenses, in particular those fees, incurred for the purposes of the main proceedings and paid on his behalf by a third party to the dispute, company A, constitute costs recoverable by the intervener.

…

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)

hereby orders:

**The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Orgatex GmbH & Co. KG to Mr Lawrence Longton is set at EUR 3 978.75.**

Luxembourg, 7 October 2025.

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| V. Di Bucci |  | M.J. Costeira |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Registrar |  | President |

---

[\*](#Footref*)      Language of the case: German.

---

[1](#Footref1)      Only the paragraphs of the present order which the Court considers it appropriate to publish are reproduced here.

[Top](#document1)