Provisional text

ORDER OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
(First Chamber)

23 May 2016

Case F‑65/09 DEP

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Civil service — Procedure — Taxation of costs)

Application:      for taxation of costs, submitted by the European Commission following the judgment of the Tribunal of 23 November 2010 in Marcuccio v Commission (F‑65/09, EU:F:2010:149), delivered in the case registered as F‑65/09.

Held:      The total amount of the costs to be repaid by Mr Luigi Marcuccio to the European Commission in respect of recoverable costs in Case F‑65/09 is fixed at EUR 5 000. That sum is to bear default interest from the date of service of the present order to the date of actual payment, at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations in force on the first day of the month when payment is due, increased by three-and-a-half points.

Summary

1.      Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Taxation on the basis of precise information provided by the applicant or, in default, on the basis of an equitable assessment by the EU judicature — Fixed nature of lawyer’s remuneration — Irrelevant to the Court’s discretion

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 105(c))

2.      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))

1.      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. For the Courts to assess whether the expenses actually incurred for the purposes of the proceedings were necessary, the applicant must provide precise information. Similarly, the fixed nature of the remuneration has no effect on the Civil Service Tribunal’s assessment of the amount recoverable by way of costs, since it bases its decisions on well-established criteria laid down by case-law and precise information which the parties must provide to it. Whilst the absence of such information does not preclude the Tribunal fixing the amount of the recoverable costs on the basis of an equitable assessment, it nonetheless places it in a situation where its assessment of the applicant’s claims must necessarily be strict.

(see paras 24, 30, 34)

See:

Order of 17 February 2004 in DAI v ARAP and Others, C‑321/99 P-DEP, not published, EU:C:2004:103, para. 23

Orders of 31 March 2011 in Tetra Laval v Commission, T‑5/02 DEP and T‑80/02 DEP, not published, EU:T:2011:129, para. 68, and 28 May 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑278/07 P-DEP, EU:T:2013:269, para. 16

Orders of 10 November 2009 in X v Parliament, F‑14/08 DEP, EU:F:2009:149, para. 22; 26 April 2010 in Schönberger v Parliament, F‑7/08 DEP, EU:F:2010:32, para. 24, and 27 September 2011 in De Nicola v EIB, F‑55/08 DEP, EU:F:2011:155, paras 40 and 41

2.      In fixing the recoverable costs, the Courts of the European Union take account of all the circumstances of the case up to point at which the order on taxation of costs is adopted, including the expenses necessarily incurred in relation to the taxation of costs proceedings.

In that regard, as is apparent from the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable before the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 7(1) of Annex I to that Statute, 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 two agents and an external lawyer has no impact on the possible recoverability of those 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 paras 26, 27)

See:

Orders of 23 March 2012 in Kerstens v Commission, T‑498/09 P-DEP, not published, EU:T:2012:147, paras 15 and 20, and 28 May 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑278/07 P-DEP, EU:T:2013:269, para. 14