CELEX: 62005FO0100
Language: en
Date: 2007-05-16 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 May 2007. # Eleni Chatziioannidou v Commission of the European Communities. # Taxation of costs. # Case F-100/05 DEP.

ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)
      16 May 2007
      Case F-100/05 DEP
      Eleni Chatziioannidou
      v
      Commission of the European Communities 
      (Procedure – Taxation of costs)
      Application: under Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to the Civil Service
         Tribunal pursuant to Article 3(4) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union
         Civil Service Tribunal (OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7), until the entry into force of its rules of procedure, in which Mrs Chatziioannidou
         seeks taxation of the costs relating to the judgment in Case F‑100/05 Chatziioannidou v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I-A-1-000 and II‑A‑1-000.
      
      Held: The amount of the costs recoverable by the applicant in Case F‑100/05 is fixed at EUR 10 222.
      
      Summary
      Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Elements to be taken into consideration 
      (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b); Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))
      When assessing the scale of work involved in the proceedings before the Court in order to determine the amount of recoverable
         costs, the primary consideration of the Community judicature is the total number of hours of work which may appear to be objectively
         necessary for the purpose of those proceedings. The amount of an adviser’s fees cannot depend on the length of the documents
         he produces. Concise documents may be as much a reflection of their author’s ability to summarise, saving the Court and the
         other party time, as a sign of quick work. The brevity of a document cannot, in principle, be regarded as reflecting rapid
         or cursory work by the person who produces it.
      
      (see paras 23-24)
      See:
      T-290/94 DEP Kaysersberg v Commission [1998] ECR II‑4105, para. 20; T-171/00 DEP Spruyt v Commission [2002] ECR‑SC I‑A‑225 and II‑1127, para. 29