CELEX: 62007FO0006
Language: en
Date: 2009-07-01 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2009. # Risto Suvikas v Council of the European Union. # Public service - Taxation of costs. # Case F-6/07 DEP.

ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
      (Third Chamber)
      1 July 2009
      Case F-6/07 DEP
      Risto Suvikas
      v
      Council of the European Union
      (Civil service – Procedure – Taxation of costs)
      Application: by which Mr Suvikas applied for taxation of costs relating to the judgment of 8 May 2008 in Case F-6/07 Suvikas v Council [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000.
      
      Held: The amount of the costs recoverable by the applicant in Case F-6/07 Suvikas v Council is fixed at EUR 11 640.
      
      Summary
      1.      Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Elements to be taken into consideration – Scale of adviser’s work
      (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122)
      2.      Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Office and telecommunication costs
      (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122)
      1.      When assessing the scale of work by a party’s adviser in the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal 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. While concise documents may be as much
         a reflection of their author’s ability to summarise, saving the Tribunal and the other party time, as a sign of quick work,
         the length of the documents cannot, in principle, be regarded as necessarily implying that the case objectively required a
         large amount of work.
      
      (see paras 24, 26)
      See:
      T-290/94 DEP Kaysersberg v Commission [1998] ECR II‑4105, para. 20; T-171/00 Spruyt v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑225 and II‑1127, para. 29
      
      F‑100/05 DEP Chatziioannidou v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, para. 24
      
      2.      Where an appropriate computer system is not used, it is virtually impossible for a lawyer’s chambers to justify the share
         of office and telecommunication costs chargeable for each case in the chambers’ various operating costs. Consequently, where
         the various operating costs attributable to a particular case may be regarded as not included in the fee, it may be reasonable,
         in order to determine the amount of recoverable costs, to set a fixed sum.
      
      (see para. 38)