ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
28 April 2009 (*)
(Legal Aid)
In Case T‑320/07 AJ,
Glen Jones and Daphne Jones, residing in Neath (United Kingdom), represented by S. Llewellyn Jones, Solicitor,
applicants,
v
Commission of the European Communities, represented by V. Di Bucci and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents,
defendant,
APPLICATION for legal aid,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
makes the following
Order
1 By application filed at the Registry of the Court on 24 August 2007, the applicants brought an action pursuant to Article 230 EC seeking annulment of the Commission Decision of 18 June 2007 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicants against the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB), in relation to an alleged practice of discriminatory pricing applied by the CEGB in the purchase of coal intended for use in the production of electricity.
2 The written procedure was concluded on 17 October 2008.
3 By documents filed at the Registry of the Court on 6 November 2008 and 21 November 2008 respectively, Glen Jones and Daphne Jones requested the Court to grant them legal aid pursuant to Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
4 By letter filed at the Registry of the Court on 12 December 2008, the applicants, at the request of the Court, lodged additional documentary evidence in support of those applications.
5 The Commission did not respond to the Court’s invitation to it to lodge observations on those applications for legal aid.
6 First, in accordance with Article 94(1) of the Rules of Procedure, in order to ensure effective access to justice, legal aid granted for proceedings before the Court covers, in whole or in part, the costs involved in legal assistance and representation by a lawyer in proceedings before the Court. The cashier of the Court is responsible for those costs.
7 Under Article 94(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure, the grant of legal aid is subject to two conditions. First, the applicant, because of his economic situation, must be wholly or partly unable to meet the costs involved in legal assistance and representation by a lawyer before the Court and, second, his action must not appear to be manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded.
8 Under Article 96(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the decision on the application for legal aid is taken by the President by way of an order, which must, if it refuses the legal aid applied for, state the reasons on which it is based.
9 In the present case, in the light of the evidence provided by the applicants, the criteria laid down in Article 94(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure are met. As a result, it is appropriate to grant legal aid to the applicants.
10 However, it follows from both the broad logic and the wording of Articles 94 and 95 of the Rules of Procedure that the benefit of legal aid must as a rule be restricted to covering the costs of proceedings incurred either at the same time as, or after, the making of the application for aid. In contrast, save in exceptional circumstances, it is neither in keeping with the letter and spirit of those provisions nor in the interests of the proper administration of justice for legal costs incurred before that date to be chargeable to legal aid. Unless or until the contrary is proved, it must be supposed that the applicant did not find himself unable to meet those costs and that he does not, therefore, satisfy one of the conditions for the grant of legal aid (see, to that effect, order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2006 in Case T‑49/04 AJ Faraj Hassan v Council and Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 21).
11 In the present case, after filing their actions for annulment on 24 August 2007, the applicants have waited more than 14 months before applying, after the close of the written procedure, for legal aid.
12 The applicants have advanced no explanation for the timing of these applications, whereas they must in the normal course of events have had to incur the legal costs for the written procedure.
13 That being so, the applicants have not proved that they were, in the period before they applied for legal aid, unable to meet the costs of these proceedings.
14 Legal aid must therefore be limited to the costs incurred by the applicants for the purposes of these applications for legal aid, the hearing and, where appropriate, subsequently.
15 Second, under the first subparagraph of Article 96(3) of the Rules of Procedure, in the order granting legal aid a lawyer is to be designated to represent the applicant.
16 In the present case, the applicants have requested in their applications for legal aid that their current lawyer, Mrs S. Llewellyn Jones, be designated to represent them.
17 Therefore, Mrs S. Llewellyn Jones should be designated as the lawyer to represent the applicants.
18 Third, under the third subparagraph of Article 96(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the order granting legal aid may specify an amount to be paid to the lawyer instructed to represent the person concerned or fix a limit which the lawyer’s disbursements and fees may not, in principle, exceed.
19 In the present case, the decision on the amount of fees and disbursements which may be charged to legal aid should be reserved. Nevertheless, taking account of the purpose and nature of the proceedings, it should be made clear, at this stage, that in accordance with the abovementioned provisions of Article 96(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the lawyer’s fees and disbursements under legal aid should not, in principle, exceed the sum of EUR 4 000, excluding value added tax.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
hereby orders:
1. Mr Glen Jones and Mrs Daphne Jones are granted legal aid.
2. Mrs Llewellyn Jones is appointed as the lawyer to assist Mr Glen Jones and Mrs Daphne Jones.
3. The decision on the amount of fees and disbursements which may be charged to legal aid is reserved.
4. Those fees and disbursements should not, in principle, exceed the sum of EUR 4 000, excluding value added tax.
Luxembourg, 28 April 2009.