Language of document : ECLI:EU:T:2014:1083

Case T‑283/08 P-DEP

Pavlos Longinidis

v

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)

(Procedure — Taxation of costs — Lawyers’ fees — Representation of an EU body by a lawyer — Flat rate of remuneration — Agent’s travel and subsistence expenses — Translation costs — Recoverable costs — Applicant’s financial situation)

Summary — Order of the General Court (Appeal Chamber), 11 December 2014

1.      Judicial proceedings — Costs — Dispute concerning costs to be recovered — Concept — No requirement that the party requested to reimburse costs make a refusal

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 92(1))

2.      Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Concept — Elements to be taken into consideration — Financial situation of the party ordered to pay the costs — Not included

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 91(b))

3.      Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — Concept — Fees paid by an institution, organ or body of the EU to its lawyer — Included — No infringement of equal treatment principle in using lawyers in some cases but not in others

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 91(b))

4.      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 — Flat-rate remuneration of lawyer — Irrelevant to the Court’s power of discretion

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 91(b))

5.      Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Concept — Involvement of more than one lawyer — Condition — Existence of specific circumstances

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 91(b))

6.      Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Concept — Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties — External translation costs concerning translations of procedural documents lodged by EU institutions — Not included

(Council Regulation No 1, as modified by Regulation No 517/2013, Art. 1, Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 35(3), 43(2), and 91(b))

1.      Under Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, if there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the General Court, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposite party, is to make an order, from which no appeal lies.

Thus, in order to avoid depriving the procedure under that provision, which serves to achieve a definitive ruling on the costs of the proceedings, of its effectiveness, it cannot be held that a dispute for the purposes of that provision arises only when the party who has been requested to reimburse the costs advanced by the successful party makes an explicit, comprehensive refusal.

(see paras 12, 13)

2.      It follows from Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the General Court and, second, to those which were necessary for that purpose. In that regard, the General 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, 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. In fixing the recoverable costs, the Court takes account of all the circumstances of the case up to the making of the order on taxation of costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred in relation to the taxation of costs proceedings.

However, the financial situation of the party ordered to pay the costs is not one of the criteria in the light of which the amount of recoverable costs is fixed by the EU judicature in proceedings for taxation of costs.

(see paras 19-21, 67)

3.      It is apparent from the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable before the General Court pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, that, as regards the manner in which they wish to be represented or assisted before the EU judicature, the institutions of the European Union are free to have recourse to the assistance of a lawyer. For the purposes of the application of that provision of the Statute, EU bodies are to be equated with those institutions.

Thus, whilst the fact that an EU body instructs an agent and an external lawyer has no impact on the possible recoverability of the costs at issue, 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. In that regard, there can be no question of an infringement of the principle of equal treatment between applicants in the event that the defending EU body decides to have recourse to the services of a lawyer in certain cases, whereas in others it is represented by its agents.

Any other assessment which makes the right of an EU body to claim all or part of the fees paid to a lawyer subject to proof of an ‘objective’ need to use that lawyer’s services would in fact constitute an indirect restriction on the freedom conferred by the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and entail for the EU judicature a duty to substitute its own assessment for that of the institutions and bodies responsible for the organisation of their departments. Such a task is compatible neither with the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, nor with the power to adopt rules for their own internal organisation enjoyed by the institutions and bodies of the European Union in relation to the management of their cases before the EU judicature.

(see paras 24-26)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 28, 31)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 50)

6.      The costs relating to translations which EU institutions and bodies are required to produce before the General Court under Article 43(2) of the Rules of Procedure cannot be held to be recoverable costs. It is only for interveners and subject to certain conditions the General Court has allowed recoverable costs to include translation costs.

In that regard, in the case of an action brought in Greek against an EU body whose representatives do not master that language and have had recourse to a Greek-speaking external lawyer, recourse to the latter must be regarded as being sufficient to enable that body to work, in the context of the legal proceedings, in Greek, in accordance with the obligations laid down by Article 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and Article 1 of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community, as amended by Regulation No 517/2013. To allow translation costs as recoverable costs would amount to discrimination on grounds of language, as those costs would not have been incurred those costs had the applicant chosen another language of the case, mastered by that body.

(see paras 61, 62, 64)