ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

3 July 2014

Case F‑5/12 DEP

Slawomir Bogusz

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(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which Mr Bogusz brought before the Tribunal following the judgment of the Tribunal of 12 June 2013 in Case F‑5/12 Bogusz v Frontex (‘the judgment in F‑5/12’).

Held:      The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union to Mr Bogusz by way of recoverable costs in Case F‑5/12 Bogusz v Frontex is EUR 2 547.50.

Summary

1.      Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers — Determination of the fees that may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs

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

2.      Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Expenses necessarily incurred in connection with taxation proceedings — Included

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

1.      The Union judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers, but to determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs.

In ruling on an application for taxation of costs, first, the Union judicature does not have to take into consideration any agreement reached in that regard between the party concerned and his agents or advisers. Second, even if the production of a paid invoice is capable of determining the actual amount of the costs incurred by the applicant for his representation for the purpose of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal, the fact remains that evidence of payment of the costs whose recovery is sought is not a precondition for the taxation by the Tribunal of the recoverable costs.

In the absence of Union provisions laying down fee scales, the Union 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 Union law, the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the case for the agents or advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings. The Union court’s unfettered assessment may lead it to fix the recoverable costs at an amount lower than that which the party required to pay them would have been prepared to pay the other party.

(see paras 30, 33, 35)

See:

orders in Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek v Commission, 318/82-DEPE, EU:C:1985:468, para. 2; Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja v Diputación Foral de Vizcaya and Others, C‑465/09 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:112, paras 26 and 27; Kronofrance v Germany and Others, C‑75/05 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:458, para. 30; X v Parliament, F‑14/08 DEP, EU:F:2009:149, para. 23 and the case-law cited therein, and Cuallado Martorell v Commission, F‑96/09 DEP, EU:F:2013:186, para. 28

2.      Even if, formally, there is no need to adjudicate separately on the costs and fees incurred for the purpose of the proceedings for the taxation of costs, it is none the less for the Union court, 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.

In that regard, an application for taxation of costs is of a fairly standardised nature and generally presents no problems for a lawyer who has already dealt with the substance of the case.

(see paras 45, 47)

See:

orders in France Télévisions v TF1, C‑451/10 P-DEP, EU:C:2012:323, para. 32; CPVO v Schräder, C‑38/09 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:679, para. 42, and Schönberger v Parliament, F‑7/08 DEP, EU:F:2010:32, paras 46 and 47