ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
18 September 2015 (*)
(Procedure — Taxation of costs)
In Joined Cases T‑414/08 DEP to T‑420/08 DEP and T‑442/08 DEP,
Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība, established in Riga (Latvia), represented by M. Favart, lawyer,
applicant in Case T‑414/08,
Irish Music Rights Organisation Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland), represented by M. Favart, lawyer, and D. Collins, Solicitor,
applicant in Case T‑415/08,
Eesti Autorite Ühing, established in Tallin (Estonia), represented by M. Favart, lawyer,
applicant in Case T‑416/08,
Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL, established in Lisbon (Portugal), represented by M. Favart, lawyer,
applicant in Case T‑417/08,
Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním o.s. (OSA), established in Prague (Czech Republic), represented by M. Favart, lawyer,
applicant in Case T‑418/08,
Lietuvos autorių teisių gynimo asociacijos agentūra (LATGA-A), established in Vilnius (Lithuania), represented by M. Favart, lawyer,
applicant in Case T‑419/08,
Združenje skladateljev, avtorjev in založnikov za zaščito avtorskih pravic Slovenije (SAZAS), established in Trzin (Slovenia), represented by M. Favart, lawyer,
applicant in Case T‑420/08,
International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC), established in Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers,
applicant in Case T‑442/08,
supported by
International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC),
intervener in Cases T‑414/08 to T‑420/08,
and by
European Broadcasting Union (EBU), established in Grand-Saconnex (Switzerland), represented by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, D. Slater, Solicitor, and A. Duron, lawyer,
intervener,
v
European Commission, represented by A. Biolan and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents,
defendant,
APPLICATIONS for taxation of costs to be reimbursed by the defendant to the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) following the judgments of 12 April 2013 in Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība v Commission (T‑414/08, EU:T:2013:174), Irish Music Rights Organisation v Commission (T‑415/08, EU:T:2013:175), Eesti Autorite Ühing v Commission (T‑416/08, EU:T:2013:176), Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores v Commission (T‑417/08, EU:T:2013:177), OSA v Commission (T‑418/08, EU:T:2013:178), LATGA-A v Commission (T‑419/08, EU:T:2013:179), SAZAS v Commission (T‑420/08, EU:T:2013:180) and CISAC v Commission (T‑442/08, ECR, EU:T:2013:188),
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber),
composed of H. Kanninen (Rapporteur), President, I. Pelikánová and E. Buttigieg, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Facts, procedure and forms of order sought
1 By applications lodged at the Court Registry on 29 September and 3 October 2008, the Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība, the Irish Music Rights Organisation Ltd, the Eesti Autorite Ühing, the Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL, the Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním o.s. (OSA), the Lietuvos autorių teisių gynimo asociacijos agentūra (LATGA-A), the Združenje skladateljev, avtorjev in založnikov za zaščito avtorskih pravic Slovenije (SAZAS) and the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (‘the applicants’) brought eight actions, registered at the Court Registry, respectively, under numbers T‑414/08, T‑415/08, T‑416/08, T‑417/08, T‑418/08, T‑419/08, T‑420/08 and T‑442/08 (‘the cases in the main proceedings’), seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — ClSAC) (‘the contested decision’ or ‘Decision C(2008) 3435 final’).
2 The contested decision concerned the conditions of the administration and licensing of copyright relating to public performance rights of musical works solely with respect to exploitation via the Internet, satellite and cable retransmission. It was addressed to 24 collective collecting societies established in the European Economic Area (EEA) (‘the collecting societies’). The collecting societies administer the authors’ (lyricists’ and composers’) rights in the musical works which they have created.
3 By eight orders of 2 June 2009, the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court authorised the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (‘the intervener’) to intervene in the cases in the main proceedings in support of the applicants’ action.
4 Following a change in the composition of the chambers of the Court, the Judge-Rapporteur was assigned, as President, to the Sixth Chamber, to which the cases in the main proceedings were accordingly assigned.
5 By order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 11 October 2011, Cases T‑414/08 to T‑420/08 were joined for the purposes of the oral part of the procedure.
6 As the Judge-Rapporteur was unable to sit in the present case, the President of the Court reallocated the case to another Judge-Rapporteur and, pursuant to Article 32(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991, designated another Judge to complete the Sixth Chamber.
7 By judgments of 12 April 2013 in Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība v Commission (T‑414/08, EU:T:2013:174), Irish Music Rights Organisation v Commission (T‑415/08, EU:T:2013:175), Eesti Autorite Ühing v Commission (T‑416/08, EU:T:2013:176), Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores v Commission (T‑417/08, EU:T:2013:177), OSA v Commission (T‑418/08, EU:T:2013:178), LATGA-A v Commission (T‑419/08, EU:T:2013:179), SAZAS v Commission (T‑420/08, EU:T:2013:180) and CISAC v Commission (T‑442/08, ECR, EU:T:2013:188), the Court (Sixth Chamber) upheld the applicants’ actions and, therefore, annulled Article 3 of the contested decision in so far as it concerned them. In Cases T‑414/08 to T‑420/08, the Court dismissed the remainder of the applicants’ actions. In all of the cases in the main proceedings, the Court ordered the Commission to pay the costs, on the basis of Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991.
8 By letter of 14 June 2013, the intervener requested the Commission to reimburse the costs which it had incurred in the cases in the main proceedings. It has estimated those costs at EUR 114 469.63, including EUR 113 226.10 for lawyers’ fees and EUR 1 243.53 for disbursements.
9 By letter of 1 August 2013, the Commission, first, requested confirmation that the amount of costs claimed by the intervener covered those incurred in the eight cases in the main proceedings. Second, the Commission informed the intervener that it did not agree to pay the amount specified by the intervener as it considered it to be excessive. The Commission proposed to set the recoverable costs at the lump sum of EUR 25 000.
10 By letter of 7 May 2014, the intervener confirmed, first, that its request for reimbursement of costs concerned those incurred in the eight cases in the main proceedings. Second, it stated that it considered that the Commission’s proposal was unreasonable and could not be accepted; accordingly it envisaged bringing an application for taxation of costs before the Court.
11 By letter of 8 May 2014, the Commission took note of the intervener’s intention to submit an application for taxation of costs before the Court and submitted certain comments on the application for reimbursement.
12 By eight applications lodged at the Court Registry on 20 August 2014, the intervener submitted, on the basis of Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991, eight applications for taxation of costs by which it requested that the Court set the recoverable costs to be reimbursed by the Commission at the following amounts: EUR 16 058.70 (comprising EUR 15 903.26 for lawyers’ fees and EUR 155.44 for disbursements) in Case T‑442/08; EUR 14 058.70 (comprising EUR 13 903.26 for lawyers’ fees and EUR 155.44 for disbursements) in each of Cases T‑414/08 to T‑420/08. The total amount of the costs so claimed came to a total of EUR 114 469.63 (comprising EUR 113 226.10 for lawyers’ fees and EUR 1 243.53 for disbursements). In addition, the intervener requested that the Commission be ordered to pay the costs relating to the proceedings for taxation of costs and that the amount of those costs be set at EUR 1 250 in each of the eight cases, namely a total of EUR 10 000.
13 By documents lodged at the Court Registry on 6 October 2014, the Commission disputed those requests, pleading the excessive nature of the amount of costs to be reimbursed, and requested that the Court set the total amount of recoverable costs for each of the eight cases in the main proceedings and for the costs relating to the proceedings for taxation of costs at EUR 3 125, that is to say, a total of EUR 25 000.
14 By order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 29 June 2015, after hearing the parties, Cases T‑414/08 DEP to T‑420/08 DEP and T‑442/08 DEP were joined for the purposes of the present order, on account of the connection between them, in accordance with Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991.
Law
Arguments of the parties
15 The intervener states that the amount of fees for which it claims reimbursement corresponds to a total number of 256 hours of work, namely approximately 36 hours of work in Case T‑442/08 and 31.5 hours of work in each of the seven other cases in the main proceedings.
16 The intervener explains that that amount covers, inter alia, the following work: reviewing the contested decision; drafting and submitting eight applications for leave to intervene and eight statements in intervention; drafting and submitting observations on the defendant’s plea of inadmissibility in Case T‑442/08; reviewing the Commission’s defence and observations on the statements in intervention; responding to the questions of the Court in Cases T‑414/08 to T‑420/08; preparing and attending three hearings; reviewing and analysing the judgments of 12 April 2013 in order to consider the merits of an appeal.
17 The intervener states that it is not, in practice, feasible to identify precisely the costs related to each case in the main proceedings, in particular as most of those costs are common to the eight cases in the main proceedings. Consequently, it proposes to divide by eight the total amount of fees and disbursements invoiced by its lawyers, except for the costs incurred in submitting the statement in intervention on the plea of inadmissibility (corresponding to EUR 2 000 for five hours of work) which are specific to Case T‑442/08.
18 The intervener submits that all the costs for which it seeks reimbursement are recoverable within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991.
19 In order to justify the amount relating to lawyers’ fees, the intervener claims that the cases in the main proceedings have been significant as regards EU law and concerned complex and new issues. In addition, they presented significant difficulties and the amount of work generated is in line with their complexity. The intervener submits that its intervention has had significant added value, in particular in relation to several elements of music rights licensing to national broadcasters. In the intervener’s view, the cases in the main proceedings entailed significant financial consequences. Furthermore, the intervener states, first, that the fact that it was an intervener in the cases in the main proceedings does not mean that they entailed fewer difficulties for it and, second, that the existence of several parallel proceedings was a complicating factor.
20 The intervener also states that the disbursements for which it seeks reimbursement and which represent a total of EUR 1 243.53 include courier charges (EUR 474.32), stationery and printing expenses (EUR 189), travel (EUR 393.21) and accommodation (EUR 187). Those costs have been necessary for the purposes of the proceedings and thus constitute recoverable costs.
21 The Commission submits, for its part, that, due to the identical nature of the eight cases in the main proceedings, the starting point should be to assess the costs as if the intervener had intervened in a single case. Furthermore, the cases in the main proceedings could be considered as being of ‘somewhat average’ difficulty within the area of competition litigation. According to the Commission, the issues raised, although having some novelty, could be decided on the facts and not on legal principles. The copyright issues raised in the cases in the main proceedings could not have been complex for the intervener, given its expertise in that field.
22 The Commission maintains that the amount claimed is clearly excessive. It disputes, in particular, the costs which date from a time at which there was no procedural step and which appear to refer to the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of the contested decision (invoice 8304901, Annex 2 included in Annex A.3 to the application, which refers to a conference call which took place on 19 January 2008, that is to say six months before the contested decision was adopted), or which are even related to the implementation of that decision (invoice 8305106, Annex 3 included in Annex A.3 to the application, which concerns a meeting with the services of the Commission), coordination with other lawyers (invoices 8306540, 8306647 and 8307063, Annexes 7, 8 and 9 included in Annex A.3 to the application) or reading judgments (invoice 8307625, Annex 10 included in Annex A.3 to the application). According to the Commission, approximately half of the hours invoiced are probably not recoverable.
23 Furthermore, according to the Commission, the intervener repeated, merely adding a few details, the arguments already relied on by the applicants in their pleadings or in its own documents submitted during the administrative procedure, without bringing any real added value.
24 In general, the Commission considers that a maximum of 10 hours was objectively necessary to prepare the application for leave to intervene and 30 hours were sufficient to prepare the statement in intervention. As for the preparation for and attendance at the hearings, the Commission takes the view that, overall, they did not require more than 40 hours.
25 The Commission adds that, having regard to the level of expertise provided by the lawyers for the intervener, an hourly rate of EUR 275 is justified, whereas that which is claimed by the intervener, over EUR 440 per hour, is clearly excessive.
26 As regards the statement in intervention on the issue of admissibility, the Commission notes that only 4.5 hours may have been dedicated to it. However, in its opinion, that additional step should not give rise in recoverable costs, since it was not necessary for the intervener to make submissions on the admissibility of CISAC’s action in Case T‑442/08 as the seven other cases in the main proceedings were clearly admissible. Should the Court find that some work was nevertheless justified, the recoverable costs relating thereto should not exceed EUR 1 237.50.
27 Consequently, the Commission considers that overall no more than 80 hours of work are justified in the present case, which, by applying an hourly rate of EUR 275, corresponds to fees of EUR 22 000. An amount of EUR 1 000 could be added to that sum to take account of the fact that the application to intervene and the statement in intervention had to be adapted to the seven other cases in the main proceedings. According to the Commission, the total amount of recoverable fees is accordingly EUR 23 000 in the cases in the main proceedings.
28 As regards the disbursements, the Commission submits that there was no reason for the intervener to be represented by more than one lawyer at two hearings. In any event, the link between some costs and the cases in the main proceedings is unclear. The Commission states that the recoverable costs by way of disbursements may be set at EUR 1 000 for the eight cases in the main proceedings.
29 As regards the costs for the proceedings for taxation of costs, the Commission estimates them to be EUR 1 000 for the eight cases.
30 Consequently, according to the Commission, the total amount of recoverable costs for the eight cases in the main proceedings and in the proceedings for taxation of costs amounts to EUR 25 000, that is to say, EUR 3 125 per case.
Findings of the Court
31 Under Article 170(1) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, if there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the party concerned may apply to the Court to determine the dispute. After giving the party concerned by the application an opportunity to submit his observations, the Court shall give its decision by way of an order from which no appeal shall lie.
32 According to Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure, which corresponds to Article 91(b), of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991, ‘expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings, in particular the travel and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of agents, advisers or lawyers’ are regarded as recoverable costs. It follows from that provision that recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court and, second, to those which were necessary for that purpose (order of 28 June 2004 in Airtours v Commission, T‑342/99 DEP, ECR, EU:T:2004:192, paragraph 13 and the case-law cited).
33 According to settled case-law, the EU Courts are not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers, but may determine the amount of those fees to be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. When ruling on an application for taxation of costs, the Court is not obliged to take account of any national scale of lawyers’ fees or any agreement in that regard between the party concerned and his agents or advisers (order in Airtours v Commission, cited in paragraph 32 above, EU:T:2004:192, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).
34 It has also consistently been held that, in the absence of EU provisions laying down fee-scales, the 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 EU law as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the proceedings for the agents and advisers involved and the financial interests which the parties had in the proceedings (order in Airtours v Commission, cited in paragraph 32 above, EU:T:2004:192, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited).
35 It is therefore necessary to assess the amount of the costs recoverable by the intervener in terms of those criteria.
Fees relating to the cases in the main proceedings
– The purpose, nature and importance of the dispute from the perspective of EU law and the difficulties presented by the case
36 The cases in the main proceedings before the Court consisted of eight actions for partial annulment of Decision C(2008) 3435 final. The Commission had considered that the collecting societies had infringed Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in particular by coordinating the territorial delineations contained in the reciprocal representation agreements in a way which limits licences to the domestic territory of each collecting society.
37 The question of the existence of a concerted practice which excludes the possibility of granting licences on the domestic territory of another collecting society was new and presented some legal complexity. Furthermore, it required an analysis of the collective copyright management scheme by the collecting societies and, in particular, of the functioning of the market for the licensing of public performance rights for Internet, satellite and cable retransmission of musical works.
38 The cases in the main proceedings therefore raised some complexity from a factual, technical and legal point of view and were significant from the point of view of EU law.
– The parties’ financial interest in the proceedings
39 The intervener claims that the cases in the main proceedings entailed significant financial consequences for it as operator of the Eurovision and the Euroradio, for the exchange of radio and television programmes between its members and for all of its active members (namely the public service broadcasters in 56 countries). However, the intervener did not put forward specific factors to quantify the economic interest at stake in the proceedings.
40 In the absence of such factors the economic interest cannot be considered to be unusually important (see, to that effect, orders of 7 January 2008 in Rodrigues Carvalhais v OHIM — Profilpas (PERFIX), T‑206/04 DEP, EU:T:2008:2, paragraph 13, and 6 June 2013 in Ford Motor v OHIM, T‑486/07 DEP, EU:T:2013:297, paragraph 18).
– The amount of work which the cases in the main proceedings may have generated for the intervener’s lawyers
41 At the outset, it should be borne in mind that even though, as a rule, substantial legal work is carried out in the course of the phase preceding the judicial proceedings, by ‘proceedings’, Article 140 of the Rules of Procedure, which corresponds to Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991, refers only to proceedings before the Court, to the exclusion of any prior stage. That follows in particular from Article 139 of the Rules of Procedure, which corresponds to Article 90 of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991, which refers to ‘proceedings before the [General] Court’ (order of 24 January 2002 in Groupe Origny v Commission, T‑38/95 DEP, ECR, EU:T:2002:13, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
42 Therefore, it is appropriate to dismiss the intervener’s application in so far as it seeks reimbursement by the Commission of the costs relating to the conference call of its lawyers of 19 January 2008 (invoice 8304901, Annex 2 included in Annex A.3 to the application), which occurred before the eight actions in the main proceedings were brought.
43 The lawyers’ fees relating to a period after the oral part of the procedure also cannot be characterised as expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings (orders of 4 July 2013 in Kronofrance v Germany and Others, C‑75/05 P-DEP and C‑80/05 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:458, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited, and 31 March 2011 in Tetra Laval v Commission, T‑5/02 DEP and T‑80/02 DEP, EU:T:2011:129, paragraph 77 and the case-law cited).
44 Consequently, the intervener should be denied recovery of expenses from the Commission relating to the analysis of the Court’s judgments in order to consider the merits of bringing an appeal (invoice 8307625, Annex 10 included in Annex A.3 to the application).
45 Lawyers’ fees relating to the coordination of the work of the intervener’s lawyers with that of the lawyers of the applicants in the main proceedings, and, in particular, with CISAC’s lawyers (invoices 8306086, 8306540, 8306647 and 8307063, Annexes 6, 7, 8 and 9 included in Annex A.3 to the application) are not recoverable costs. Such fees cannot be regarded as expenses incurred for the purpose of the proceedings in so far as that coordination was not ordered by the Court. Therefore, the work relating to that coordination cannot be taken into account in the estimate of hours worked which were objectively necessary for the purpose of the proceedings (order of 6 January 2004 in Mulder and Others v Council and Commission, C‑104/89 DEP, ECR, EU:C:2004:1, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited).
46 It is also appropriate to exclude from the recoverable costs the lawyers’ fees corresponding to the coordination of the work of the intervener’s lawyers with the Commission, including those related to the meeting with the Commission of 18 June 2009 (invoice 8305106, Annex 3 included in Annex A.3 to the application). In order to demonstrate that its participation in that meeting was necessary, the intervener used the same justifications as those relied on in support of its participation in the meeting with CISAC’s lawyers, referred to in paragraph 45 above, the costs of which have been excluded from recoverable costs. The intervener states that, at those meetings, matters relating to ongoing proceedings were discussed. Such a statement is not however sufficient for it to be considered that the participation in that meeting was objectively necessary for the purposes of preparing the intervention.
47 To the extent that the other costs may be taken account of as being necessary for the proceedings, it must be borne in mind that, in assessing the extent of the work which the proceedings at issue may have generated for the intervener’s lawyers, the primary consideration of the Court is the total number of hours of work which may appear to be objectively necessary for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court, irrespective of the number of lawyers who may have provided the services in question. In that regard, the ability of the Court to assess the value of work carried out is dependent on the accuracy of the information provided (order in Airtours v Commission, cited in paragraph 32 above, EU:T:2004:192, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
48 In the present case, as regards the lawyers’ fees, the intervener indicated that they correspond to a total number of 256 hours dedicated to dealing with the eight cases in the main proceedings, that is approximately 36 hours of work in Case T‑442/08 and 31.5 hours of work in each of the seven other cases in the main proceedings. It has submitted, in support of its claims, nine fee notes in which it has listed the work carried out by its lawyers.
49 It must, however, be pointed out that the intervener has not provided either the hourly rate applicable to the services rendered or the number of hours allotted to each service. In that regard, the invoices merely list the steps taken by the intervener’s lawyers.
50 It is settled case-law that the fixed assessment of the fees, without stating the working time for each item referred to and the hourly rate applied does not make it possible to assess the amount of work actually carried out (order of 5 September 2012 in Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional v OHIM, T‑581/08 DEP, EU:T:2012:401, paragraph 14 and the case-law cited). The lack of more detailed information makes it especially difficult to verify the costs incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court and those which were necessary for that purpose. In those circumstances, a strict assessment of the fees recoverable is necessary (order of 23 October 2013, Phonebook of the World v OHIM — Seat Pagine Gialle (PAGINE GIALLE), T‑589/11 DEP, EU:T:2013:572, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).
51 As regards the hourly rate applied, the average hourly rate which may be deducted by dividing the total amount claimed by the number of hours declared would be EUR 442.29. The Court considers that that rate is excessive and recalls that, according to the case-law, even a lower rate of around EUR 250 to 300 per hour can be regarded as appropriate only as remuneration for the services of a professional with a particularly large amount of experience, able to work very efficiently and fast (see, to that effect, order of 20 January 2014, Charron Inox and Almet v Council, T‑88/12 DEP, EU:T:2014:43, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited). For remuneration at such a rate to be taken into account there must moreover in return be an assessment, which must be strict, of the total number of hours of work necessary for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court (see, to that effect, order of 20 November 2012 in Al Shanfari v Council and Commission, T‑121/09 DEP, EU:T:2012:607, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
52 It is therefore for the Court to determine whether the handling of the eight cases in the main proceedings objectively necessitated work of 256 hours for the intervener’s lawyers.
53 In that regard, first, it should be noted that the eight applications for leave to intervene and the eight statements in intervention on the merits produced by the intervener’s lawyers were, in essence, identical, which indicates that not only has the work of those lawyers been rendered more easy but also that the time which they had to devote to the various files was able to be reduced. The same is true of the work carried out as a result of the joining of Cases T‑414/08 to T‑420/08 for the purposes of the oral part of the procedure, which allowed the intervener to submit a single response to the Court’s written questions and without doubt facilitated its lawyers’ preparation for and participation in the hearings. It should also be noted that in Case T‑442/08, the intervener was represented by two lawyers at the hearing of 19 October 2011 and by one lawyer at the hearing of 4 June 2012. Moreover, in Cases T‑414/08 to T‑420/08, the intervener was represented by one lawyer at the joint hearing on 4 June 2012 and did not participate in the hearing on 20 October 2011. For the eight cases in the main proceedings, the intervener has therefore participated in only three hearings. As for the two hearings which took place on the same day, that is to say, 4 June 2012, it should be noted that it was necessary only to prepare for one of them, as the arguments raised were, in essence, identical.
54 Secondly, account must be taken of the fact that, as a general rule, the procedural task of an intervener is significantly aided by the work of the main party in support of which it has intervened. As an intervention is, by its nature, subordinate to the main action, it cannot present as many difficulties as that action, save in exceptional cases (orders of 24 January 2005 in Cableuropa and Others v Commission, T‑346/02 DEP and T‑347/02 DEP, EU:T:2005:16, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited, and 6 October 2011 in Kronoply and Kronotex v Commission, T‑388/02 DEP, EU:T:2011:572, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited). In the present case, it is not apparent from the file before the Court that the cases in the main proceedings involved, in that respect, exceptional circumstances.
55 Thirdly, it should be noted that the intervener’s lawyers were already very familiar with the cases in the main proceedings as they had represented the intervener during the administrative procedure preceding the adoption of the contested decision. In fact, the content of the statements in intervention was already contained, in large part, in the observations which the intervener had made in the context of the administrative procedure, in particular the argument that the contested decision would endanger the system for granting music rights licences to broadcasters by increasing the risk of fragmentation of licences. Moreover, the intervener mentioned having studied the EBU’s internal documents on the CISAC case in invoice 8304901 (Annex 2 included in Annex A.3 to the application). That consideration is such as to have, in part, facilitated the work and reduced the time devoted to preparing the statements in intervention (see, to that effect, orders of 8 November 2001 in Kish Glass v Commission, T‑65/96 DEP, ECR, EU:T:2001:261, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited, and 6 March 2003 in Nan Ya Plastics v Council, T‑226/00 DEP and T‑227/00 DEP, ECR, EU:T:2003:61, paragraph 43).
56 It follows from the above that the number of hours invoiced by the intervener appears to be excessive, particularly as the invoices submitted by the intervener do not contain sufficient detail to assess whether such hours were justified.
57 Therefore, the Court considers that a fair assessment of all the fees recoverable by the intervener in considering, for purposes of calculating the necessary fees incurred by the intervener for the eight cases in the main proceedings, is that the disputes required work of 129 hours, that is to say, 24 hours in Case T‑442/08 and 15 hours in each of Cases T‑414/08 to T‑420/08, the remuneration of which, by applying the hourly rate of EUR 300 which the Court considers appropriate in the present case, must be assessed at EUR 38 700 for all the eight cases in the main proceedings, that is to say, EUR 7 200 in Case T‑442/08 and EUR 4 500 in each of Cases T‑414/08 to T‑420/08.
Disbursements
58 As regards the other costs, it should be recalled that, according to the intervener, disbursements necessary for the proceedings correspond to EUR 1 243.53 or EUR 155.44 per case. That involved courier charges, stationery and printing expenses as well as travel and accommodation expenses.
59 The Commission, for its part, disputes the costs associated with the joint participation of two lawyers at the hearing on 19 October 2011, which, in its opinion, was unnecessary and other costs in respect of which the relationship to the cases in the main proceedings is unclear. It therefore considers that the recoverable disbursements may be assessed at EUR 1 000 in total in respect of the cases in the main proceedings.
60 In that regard, it is apparent from the analysis of the documents before the Court that several items of documentary evidence cannot be taken into account to justify those costs. That is the case of the document entitled ‘general expense reclaim form’ dated 1 April 2009, specifying an amount to be reimbursed, since it contains no justification of the costs relating to it (Annex A.7 to the application, page 74). That is also the case of the unsigned document, on the headed notepaper of one of the lawyers with the statement of an amount to be reimbursed, which also does not contain any justification of expenses (Annex A.7 to the application, page 81). The invoice for several items, to which a handwritten note has been added (Annex A.7 to the application, page 75), likewise cannot be taken into consideration to prove that the costs incurred were necessary and their relationship to the cases in the main proceedings since it does not contain any clear and understandable information.
61 The Court thus considers that it is not in a position to determine the necessity of some costs incurred by the intervener, having regard to the poor quality of the supporting documentation provided or the absence of such documentation. That being so, the sum of EUR 1 000 should be allowed for all disbursements and other necessary costs which have been incurred by the intervener, that is to say, EUR 125 for each of the cases in the main proceedings.
Costs related to the proceedings for taxation of costs
62 The intervener requests that the Court fix the amount of recoverable costs relating to the proceedings for taxation of costs at EUR 1 250 per case, that is to say, EUR 10 000 in total.
63 In that regard, it should be noted, first, that, besides the fact that an application for taxation of costs is of a fairly standardised nature (order of 10 October 2013 in CPVO v Schräder, C‑38/09 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:679, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited), and is characterised in principle by the absence of any difficulty, the applications for the taxation of costs brought by the intervener in the eight joined cases are absolutely identical except for the reference, in Case T‑442/08 DEP, to the response to the Commission’s objections on the question of admissibility.
64 Second, the intervener has not provided details of the amount claimed in this respect, or supporting documentation which could enable an assessment of whether such an amount is appropriate and a statement of the reasons why that amount should be considered necessary for each of the proceedings for taxation of costs. The total amount of EUR 10 000, corresponding to EUR 1 250 for each set of proceedings, accordingly appears disproportionate and cannot be considered to represent the whole of the costs objectively necessary to ensure the defence of the intervener’s interests.
65 In those circumstances, the intervener’s costs should be taxed at an amount of EUR 1 250 for all of the eight proceedings for taxation of costs.
66 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the total amount of the recoverable costs, including those related to the present taxation proceedings, must be fixed at EUR 40 950, which takes account of all the circumstances of the case up to the date of this order.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
hereby orders:
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the European Commission to European Broadcasting Union (EBU) is fixed at EUR 40 950.
Luxembourg, 18 September 2015.