CELEX: 62012CO0601
Language: en
Date: 2015-10-15 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2015. # Council of the European Union v Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd. # Taxation of costs. # Case C-601/12 P-DEP.

ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)
      15 October 2015 (*)
      
      (Taxation of costs)
      In Case C‑601/12 P-DEP,
      APPLICATION for taxation of recoverable costs under Article 145 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, brought on 22 June
         2015, 
      
      Council of the European Union, represented by J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent,
      
      applicant,
      v
      Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd, established in Zhouhan (China),
      
      defendant,
      THE COURT (Seventh Chamber),
      composed of J.L. da Cruz Vilaça (Rapporteur), President of the Fifth Chamber, acting as President of the Seventh Chamber,
         C. Lycourgos and J.-C. Bonichot, Judges,
      
      Advocate General: Y. Bot,
      Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
      after hearing the Advocate General,
      makes the following
      Order
      1        The subject-matter of this action is the taxation of the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case C‑601/12
         P. 
      
      2        By an appeal lodged on 20 December 2012, Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd (‘Ningbo’) sought to have set aside, in accordance
         with Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the judgment of the General Court in Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners v Council (T‑150/09, EU:T:2012:529), by which that court dismissed its action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of
         26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s
         Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1), in so far as that regulation imposes on the defendant a definitive anti-dumping duty.
      
      3        By the judgment in Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners v Council (C‑601/12 P, EU:C:2014:115), the Court dismissed the appeal and ordered Ningbo to pay the costs relating to the appeal proceedings.
      
      4        The Council and Ningbo having not reached any agreement on the amount of the costs, the Council has made the present application.
      
       Arguments of the parties
      5        The Council requests the Court to fix the amount of the recoverable costs at EUR 21 868.30, together with default interest
         at the rate of 3.65% per annum from 12 July 2014. This amount corresponds to the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose
         of the appeal proceedings, in particular lawyers’ fees corresponding to 66.5 hours of work.
      
      6        By letter dated 16 June 2014, the Council issued a letter of formal notice requesting Ningbo to pay, before 11 July 2014,
         the amount of EUR 21 868.30 in respect of the costs the Council incurred in the appeal proceedings.
      
      7        By letter of 21 November 2014, the Council requested once more that Ningbo pay that amount, whilst specifying that it was
         increased by default interest at the rate of 3.65% per annum, starting from 12 July 2014.
      
      8        In support of its application, the Council claims that the legal issues stemming from the pleas raised by Ningbo in the appeal
         proceedings are clearly important from the point of view of EU law because of their relevance not only to this specific case,
         but also for other pending or future anti-dumping proceedings where similar issues have arisen, or could arise. 
      
      9        In particular, the Council holds that the pleas relied on raised difficult and complex legal issues relating to proceedings
         for requests for Market Economy Treatment.
      
      10      Ningbo has not submitted written observations to the Court. 
      
       Findings of the Court
      11      Under Article 144(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 considered to be
         recoverable costs. 
      
      12      It is apparent from the wording of Article 144(b) that the remuneration of a lawyer is one of the expenses necessarily incurred
         within the meaning of that provision (see the orders in Commission v Kallianos, C‑323/06 P-DEP, EU:C:2012:49, paragraph 10, and Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission, C‑554/11 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:706, paragraph 14). It also follows that the recoverable costs are limited, firstly, to expenses
         incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court and, secondly, to expenses necessarily incurred for such purposes
         (see orders in France Télévisions v TF1, C‑451/10 P-DEP, EU:C:2012:323, paragraph 17, and Schwaaner Fischwaren v Rügen Fisch, C‑582/11 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:754, paragraph 17).
      
      13      Moreover, it is settled case-law, as appears from the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice,
         that the institutions are, as regards the manner in which they intend to be represented or assisted before the Court, free
         to decide whether they will have recourse to the assistance of a lawyer or to appoint as an agent either one of their officials
         or a person who is not a member of their staff (see to that effect orders in Dietz v Commission, 126/76 DEP, EU:C:1979:158, paragraphs 5 and 6, and Commission v Sveriges Betodlares and Henrikson, C‑409/96 P-DEP, EU:C:1999:389, paragraph 12).
      
      14      In fixing the recoverable costs, the Court takes account of all the circumstances of the case up to the delivery of the order
         on taxation of costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred in relation to the taxation of costs proceedings (see orders
         in France Télévisions v TF1, C‑451/10 P-DEP, EU:C:2012:323, paragraph 18, and Atlas Air v Atlas Transport, C‑406/11 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:817, paragraph 10).
      
      15      Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the Courts of the European Union are authorised, not to tax the fees payable
         by the parties to their own lawyers, but to determine the amount up to which that remuneration may be recovered from the party
         ordered to pay the costs (see orders in Elf Aquitaine v Commission, C‑521/09 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:644, paragraph 15, and Atlas Air v Atlas Transport, C‑406/11 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:817, paragraph 11).
      
      16      In the absence of provisions of EU law 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 EU law,
         the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the case for the agents or advisers involved and the
         economic interests which the parties had in the proceedings (orders in Commission v Marcuccio, C‑432/08 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:108, paragraph 23, and Elf Aquitaine v Commission, C‑521/09 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:644, paragraph 16).
      
      17      When fixing the amount of the recoverable costs, it is appropriate to take account of the total number of hours’ work corresponding
         to the services provided and considered objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings concerned, irrespective
         of the number of lawyers who carried out that work (orders in Schwaaner Fischwaren v Rügen Fisch, C‑582/11 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:754, paragraph 25, and Atlas Air v Atlas Transport, C‑406/11 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:817, paragraph 13).
      
      18      The amount of the recoverable costs must be assessed in the light of those criteria. 
      
      19      First, as regards the subject-matter and nature of the dispute, it should be observed that the proceedings concerned are appeal
         proceedings which are, by nature, limited to questions of law and do not concern themselves with findings as to the facts
         of the dispute, or the assessment of these.
      
      20      Second, as regards the importance of the dispute from the point of view of EU law and the difficulties presented by the case,
         it must be stated that the appeal was confined to the decision of the General Court and the grounds that underpin it in answering
         the first plea relied on at first instance, alleging that the Market Economy Treatment decision was out of time. In this connection,
         Ningbo relied on three grounds of appeal which raised no new question of law and did not present any specific complexity.
         
      
      21      Third, with regard to the amount of work supplied, it is apparent, in the light of the above findings, that the drawing up
         by the Council, and consequently, by the external lawyers of the Council, of the response in the appeal resulting in the judgment
         in Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners v Council (C‑601/12 P, EU:C:2014:115) did not necessitate an in-depth analysis, or a particularly significant workload since its drafting
         required consideration of only a limited number of questions. Furthermore, the lawyers instructed by the Council in the appeal
         had already been able to acquire in-depth knowledge of the case before the Court in the context of the proceedings at first
         instance, in which they represented the Council.
      
      22      Accordingly, the 66.5 hours of work dedicated by the lawyers instructed by the Council to the preparation of the response
         to the appeal do not seem, in their entirety, ‘necessarily incurred … for the purpose of the proceedings’ within the meaning
         of Article 144(b) of the Rules of Procedure. 
      
      23      Fourth, and finally, regarding the economic interests at issue, in the dispute, for the parties, it is relevant that it was
         clearly in Ningbo’s interest to seek at appeal the annulment of the contested regulation, since the latter subjected it to
         a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China. However, the fact remains
         that no evidence was submitted to the Court to indicate that the case presented an economic interest of an unusual nature
         either for Ningbo or for the Council (see, to that effect, orders in TDK Kabushiki Kaisha v Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001, C‑197/07 P-DEP, EU:C:2012:579, paragraph 20, and Kronofrance v Germany and Others, C‑75/05 P-DEP and C‑80/05 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:458, paragraph 37).
      
      24      In light of all the foregoing considerations and having regard to the criteria referred to in paragraph 16 of the present
         order, a fair assessment of the costs recoverable from Ningbo by the Council in relation to the proceedings in Case C‑601/12 P
         will be made by fixing their total amount at the sum of EUR 9 000.
      
      On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby orders:
      The total amount of costs to be paid by Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd to the Council in Case C‑601/12 P is set at EUR 9 000.
      [Signatures]
      * Language of the case: English.