ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

2 July 2013

Case F‑64/12 DEP

Guillermo Martinez Erades

v

European External Action Service (EEAS)

(Civil service — Procedure — Taxation of costs)

Application:      for taxation of recoverable costs brought under Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure, whereby Mr Martinez Erades has requested the Tribunal to hear the present application for taxation of costs under Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Held:      The amount of costs recoverable by Mr Martinez Erades from the European External Action Service in respect of Case F‑64/12 is EUR 5 700, plus any VAT payable on that sum. The parties are to bear their own costs incurred in the present taxation of costs proceedings.

Summary

1.      Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Concept — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Production of supporting documents capable of showing that the costs were actually incurred

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(b))

2.      Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Concept — Value added tax — Inclusion in the case of a non-taxable person

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(b))

3.      Judicial proceedings — Costs — Recoverable costs — Costs incurred in connection with the taxation of costs proceedings — No need to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Arts 86 and 92)

1.      According to Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, recoverable costs are to be limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Tribunal and, secondly, to those which were necessary for that purpose.

Admittedly, it is for the applicant to produce supporting documents capable of showing that he did in fact incur the costs reimbursement of which he claims, but it may be inferred from the fact that a lawyer submitted the application and lodged a notice of withdrawal after the parties had reached an agreement that that lawyer did indeed perform acts and services necessary for the purpose of the proceedings before the Tribunal. In those circumstances, the Tribunal may determine the extent to which the costs payment of which is claimed by the lawyer representing a party may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs.

(see paras 16, 20-21)

See:

10 November 2009, F‑14/08 DEP X v Parliament, para. 21; 8 November 2011, F‑92/09 DEP U v Parliament, para. 37 and the case-law cited; 22 March 2012, F‑5/08 DEP Brune v Commission, para. 19

2.      An applicant who is not a taxable person is unable to recover the value added tax paid in respect of the services charged by his lawyer. Thus, any value added tax paid on the fees deemed essential represents for that person expenses incurred for the purpose of the proceedings within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

(see para. 28)

See:

8 July 2004, T‑7/98 DEP, T‑208/98 DEP and T‑109/99 DEP De Nicola v EIB, para. 37

25 October 2012, F‑50/09 DEP Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, para. 31

3.      Unlike Article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Article 92 of those Rules of Procedure, on disputes as to costs, does not provide that a decision as to costs is to be given in the final judgment or in the order which closes the proceedings. If, under Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure the Tribunal were to adjudicate on the dispute as to costs in the main proceedings and, separately, on the new costs incurred in the context of the latter dispute, it might subsequently have to adjudicate on a new dispute as to the new costs.

There is therefore no need to adjudicate separately on the costs and fees incurred for the purpose of the proceedings for the taxation of costs before the Tribunal. None the less, it is for the Tribunal, 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 paras 33-35)

See:

12 December 2012, F‑12/10 DEP Kerstens v Commission, para. 49; U v Parliament, para. 65