ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(Second Chamber)
25 September 2014
Case F‑61/11 DEP
Daniele Possanzini
v
European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)
(Civil service — Procedure — Taxation of costs)
Application: for taxation of recoverable costs under Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure, brought by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (‘Frontex’ or ‘the Agency’) following the orders in Possanzini v Frontex (F‑61/11 R, EU:F:2011:183) and Possanzini v Frontex (F‑61/11, EU:F:2012:146).
Held: The amount of costs recoverable by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union from Mr Possanzini in respect of Cases F‑61/11 Possanzini v Frontex and F‑61/11 R Possanzini v Frontex is EUR 8 978.28. The parties are to bear their own costs incurred in the present taxation of costs proceedings.
Summary
1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Concept — Fees paid by an institution to its lawyer — Included
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para., and Annex I, Art. 7(1); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(b))
2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Concept — Travel expenses incurred by an institution’s agent in order to meet a lawyer assisting him at the lawyer’s residence — Included — Conditions
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(b))
3. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Expenses necessarily incurred in relation to taxation proceedings — Included
(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(b))
1. It 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, that 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 agent and two lawyers has no impact on the possible recoverability of the 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 para. 28)
See:
orders in Kerstens v Commission, T‑498/09 P, EU:T:2012:147, para. 20; and Marcuccio v Commission, T‑278/07 P-DEP, EU:T:2013:269, para. 14 and the case-law cited therein
2. Travel expenses incurred by a lawyer in order to meet his client in person at the latter’s residence may not, as a general rule, be regarded as necessary for the purposes of the proceedings, unless the party seeking reimbursement of those expenses can show that those meetings were necessary for the main proceedings and that they had to be conducted at the client’s home. That principle must also be applied to costs incurred by an institution’s agent in order to meet the lawyers assisting him in proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal. In that regard, whilst it is true that existing methods of communication facilitate discussions between lawyers and clients, those methods cannot entirely take the place of all meetings in person, and it is still possible that meetings may be necessary for the purpose of the proceedings before the Tribunal. However, it is for the party seeking reimbursement of the costs relating to those meetings to prove that they related to the main proceedings and that they were necessary.
(see para. 46)
See:
orders in ICI v Commission, C‑286/95 P-DEP, EU:C:2004:412, para. 28; and Tetra Laval v Commission, C‑12/03 P-DEP and C‑13/03 P-DEP, EU:C:2010:280, para. 66
order in Sison v Council, T‑47/03 DEP, EU:T:2009:166, para. 52
3. Even if, formally, there is no need to adjudicate separately on the costs and fees incurred for the purpose of taxation of costs proceedings, it is none the less for the Union judicature, when it sets the amount of the recoverable costs, to take account of all the circumstances of the case up to the time of the adoption of the order on taxation of costs.
(see para. 52)
See:
orders in Kerstens v Commission, F‑12/10 DEP, EU:F:2012:183, paras 49 and 50; Martinez Erades v EEAS, F‑64/12 DEP, EU:F:2013:111, para. 35 and the case‑law cited therein; and Bogusz v Frontex, F‑5/12 DEP, EU:F:2014:179, para. 45