ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)
16 July 2024 (*)
(Procedure – Taxation of costs)
In Case T‑188/18 DEP,
Adonis Papaconstantinou, residing in Nicosia (Cyprus), and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, (1) represented by A. Markides, M. Ioannides, C. Velaris and C. Velaris, lawyers, A. Robertson KC and G. Rothschild, Barrister,
applicants,
v
Council of the European Union,
European Commission,
European Central Bank (ECB), represented by G. Várhelyi and A. Koutsoukou, acting as Agents, and by H.‑G. Kamann, lawyer,
Eurogroup, represented by the Council of the European Union,
and
European Union, represented by the European Commission,
defendants,
THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber),
composed of L. Truchot, President, H. Kanninen (Rapporteur) and R. Frendo, Judges,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the order of 5 May 2021, Papaconstantinou and Others v Council and Others (T‑188/18, not published, EU:T:2021:268),
makes the following
Order
1 By its application based on Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the defendant, the European Central Bank (ECB), requests the Court to fix at EUR 2 769.97 the amount of recoverable costs to be paid by the applicants, Mr Adonis Papaconstantinou and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, in respect of the expenses which it incurred in the proceedings in Case T‑188/18 together with the expenses incurred in the present proceedings.
Background to the dispute
2 By application lodged at the General Court Registry on 12 March 2018 and registered as Case T‑188/18, the applicants brought an action seeking compensation for the damage they allegedly suffered as a result of the acts adopted in the context of the recapitalisation of Trapeza Kyprou Dimosia Etareia Ltd and the resolution of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd.
3 Following the withdrawal of one of the applicants on 3 May 2018, Golden Holdings Ltd, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the General Court made the order of 24 July 2018, Papaconstantinou and Abu El Assal v Council and Others (T‑188/18, not published, EU:T:2018:535), partially removing the case from the register, in which Golden Holdings was ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the proceedings relating to Golden Holdings. The Council of the European Union and the ECB were ordered to bear their own costs in the proceedings relating to Golden Holdings.
4 By decision of 20 June 2018 of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the General Court, the proceedings in the main case were stayed until the decision that closes the proceedings in Cases T‑680/13, K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others v Council and Others, and T‑786/14, Bourdouvali and Others v Council and Others.
5 By judgments of 13 July 2018, the Court dismissed the actions brought in K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others v Council and Others (T‑680/13, EU:T:2018:486) and in Bourdouvali and Others v Council and Others (T‑786/14, not published, EU:T:2018:487).
6 The proceedings before the Court in the main case were, therefore, resumed. As appeals had been brought against the judgments of 13 July 2018, K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others v Council and Others (T‑680/13, EU:T:2018:486), and of 13 July 2018, Bourdouvali and Others v Council and Others (T‑786/14, not published, EU:T:2018:487), the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court decided, on 9 November 2018, to stay the proceedings in the main case again.
7 By judgment of 16 December 2020, Council v K. Chrysostomides & Co. and Others (C‑597/18 P, C‑598/18 P, C‑603/18 P and C‑604/18 P, ‘the judgment on appeal’, EU:C:2020:1028), the Court of Justice essentially upheld the dismissal of the claims for compensation. Following that judgment, the proceedings before the General Court were resumed in the main case and, on 20 January 2021, the parties were invited to submit their observations on the inferences which they drew from that judgment for their own case.
8 Following the judgment on appeal, the applicants, by letter of 1 March 2021, informed the General Court Registry that they were discontinuing their action in the main case. Consequently, the case was removed from the register by order of 5 May 2021, Papaconstantinou and Others v Council and Others (T‑188/18, not published, EU:T:2021:268), and the applicants were ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the ECB.
9 By letter of 14 February 2023, the ECB informed the applicants that the total amount of recoverable costs was EUR 1 519.97.
10 By emails of 15 February 2023 and 4 April 2023, the ECB renewed its request for reimbursement.
11 By emails of 17 February 2023 and 5 April 2023, the barristers who had represented the applicants in the main case expressed their wish no longer to be contacted regarding the request for reimbursement.
12 Since the applicants did not act on that request for reimbursement, the ECB, by document lodged at the Court Registry on 11 October 2023, brought the present application for taxation of costs.
Forms of order sought
13 The ECB claims that the Court should:
– fix the amount of recoverable costs in respect of the main proceedings at EUR 1 519.97 and order the applicants jointly and severally to reimburse them;
– fix the amount of recoverable costs in respect of the present proceedings at EUR 1 250 and order the applicants jointly and severally to reimburse them;
– deliver an enforceable copy of the order to the ECB.
14 On 16 October 2023, the Court Registry served the application for taxation of costs on the applicants’ representatives by means of e-Curia, in accordance with Article 6 of the Decision of the General Court of 11 July 2018 on the lodging and service of procedural documents by means of e-Curia (OJ 2018 L 240, p. 72), and stated that the time limit for submitting observations on the application for taxation of costs had been set at 29 November 2023.
15 The applicants did not submit observations on the application for taxation of costs.
Law
16 Under Article 170(3) of the Rules of Procedure, if there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the General Court is, on application by the party concerned, to give its decision by way of an order from which no appeal is to lie, after giving the party concerned by the application an opportunity to submit his or her observations.
17 Moreover, it should be borne in mind that following settled case-law, the representatives of a party in a case in the main proceedings remain the point of contact for the Court until that party appoints, as appropriate, a new representative (order of 25 October 2018, Emesa-Trefilería and Industrias Galycas v Commission, T‑406/10 DEP, not published, EU:T:2018:766, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited).
18 In the present case, the application for taxation of costs has been notified to the applicants’ representatives by e-Curia and no change in the applicants’ representation has been communicated to the Court.
19 The applicants were, therefore, given the opportunity to submit their observations, in accordance with Article 170(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
20 Under Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure, ‘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 to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court and which were necessary for that purpose (see order of 6 March 2003, Nan Ya Plastics and Far Eastern Textiles v Council, T‑226/00 DEP and T‑227/00 DEP, EU:T:2003:61, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
21 It must also be borne in mind that, in the absence of provisions of EU law laying down fee-scales or the length of time necessary for the work to be done, the Court must freely assess the details of the case, taking account of the subject matter and nature of the dispute, its significance from the point of view of EU law and also the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work which the contentious proceedings generated for the agents or counsel involved, and the economic interests which the dispute represented for the parties (see order of 26 January 2017, Nürburgring v EUIPO – Biedermann (Nordschleife), T‑181/14 DEP, EU:T:2017:41, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited).
22 Lastly, as is clear from the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable before the General Court pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, the institutions of the Union 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 (see, to that effect, order of 10 December 2018, Mallis and Malli v Commission and ECB, T‑327/13 DEP, not published, EU:T:2018:1000, paragraph 13 and the case-law cited).
23 The amount of the costs recoverable in the present case must be determined in accordance with those criteria.
24 In the present case, the ECB, which was represented in the main proceedings by agents from its Legal Service and an external law firm, seeks reimbursement of the fees incurred by the lawyers of that law firm in the main case and in the present taxation of costs proceedings.
The costs relating to the main case
The subject matter, nature, and significance of the dispute from the point of view of EU law, as well as the difficulties presented by the case and the economic interests at stake
25 As regards, in the first place, the subject matter and nature of the dispute in the main case, its significance from the point of view of EU law and the difficulties presented by the case, it must be borne in mind that the action brought in the main proceedings sought compensation for the damage allegedly caused to the applicants by various acts and omissions of the Council, the Commission, the ECB and the Eurogroup. The applicants’ action was based on two pleas in law, alleging, first, infringement of the principle of equal treatment and, second, infringement of the right to property.
26 In that regard, it should be noted that the fact that the applicants discontinued their action as a result of the delivery of the judgment on appeal (see paragraph 8 above) cannot constitute a factor capable in itself of diminishing the importance of the main case and of the legal and factual issues raised by it.
27 Indeed, when the action was brought, the main case raised novel questions relating, inter alia, to the role of the ECB in the context of the financial measures adopted concerning Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd and Trapeza Kyprou Dimosia Etaireia Ltd and had a certain significance from the point of view of EU law. However, despite the complexity of the dispute encompassing the main case, the legal issues raised by that case were similar to those in Cases T‑680/13, K. Chrysostomides & Co and Others v Council and Others, and T‑786/14, Bourdouvali and Others v Council and Others. Thus, the complexity of the main case and its significance from the point of view of EU law must be examined in the light of the delivery of the judgments of 13 July 2018, K. Chrysostomides & Co and Others v Council and Others (T‑680/13, EU:T:2018:486), and of 13 July 2018, Bourdouvali and Others v Council and Others (T‑786/14, not published, EU:T:2018:487), and of the judgment on appeal. In that regard, it should also be noted that the proceedings in the main case were stayed before the defence was lodged and resumed only after the delivery of the judgment on appeal.
28 As regards, in the second place, the economic interest which the dispute represented for the parties, it may be assumed, even if the applicants did not submit observations on the application for taxation of costs, that the ‘haircut’ of their deposits in the Cypriot banks was likely to affect their economic situation. For its part, the ECB states that the case was of particular economic and political significance, as it related to its potential liability for significant damages claimed by the applicants. Accordingly, it must be found that if the General Court had held that the action was well founded, other holders of deposits in Cypriot banks which had suffered a ‘haircut’ at the material time could, in principle, have found themselves in the same situation as the applicants. It must, therefore, be concluded that the dispute represented a certain economic interest for the Council, the Commission and the ECB.
The amount of work which the main proceedings generated for the ECB’s external lawyers
29 As regards the amount of work which the proceedings generated for the ECB’s lawyers, it should be borne in mind that the Courts of the European Union are not bound by the statement of costs submitted by the party wishing to recover costs. The primary consideration of those courts is the total number of hours of work which may appear to have been 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 (see order of 29 November 2016, TrekStor v EUIPO – Scanlab (iDrive), T‑105/14 DEP, not published, EU:T:2016:716, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).
30 In the present case, the ECB seeks, in respect of the lawyers’ fees incurred in the main case, reimbursement of EUR 1 519.97 corresponding to 7.6 hours of work. In that regard, the ECB produces an invoice from the law firm dated 10 May 2021, for the period from 25 January 2021 to 29 March 2021, setting out a breakdown of the tasks carried out for the main case and for other cases. The ECB states that the costs relating to those other cases have not been included in the amount of fees claimed in the present application for taxation of costs, but only the pro rata part of the fees corresponding to the present case.
31 It should be noted that the invoice referred to above amounts to EUR 29 900, corresponding to 152 hours of work for 16 cases, including the main case. These are the cases which gave rise to the orders of 26 February 2021, Brinkmann (Steel Trading) and Others v Commission and ECB (T‑161/15, not published, EU:T:2021:132); of 5 May 2021, Anastasiou v Commission and ECB (T‑149/14, not published, EU:T:2021:276); of 5 May 2021, Pavlides v Commission and ECB (T‑150/14, not published, EU:T:2021:261); of 5 May 2021, Vassiliou v Commission and ECB (T‑151/14, not published, EU:T:2021:262); of 5 May 2021, Medilab v Commission and ECB (T‑152/14, not published, EU:T:2021:263); of 5 May 2021, Basicmed Enterprises and Others v Council and Others (T‑379/16, not published, EU:T:2021:264); of 5 May 2021, APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others (T‑147/18, not published, EU:T:2021:266); of 5 May 2021, Scordis, Papapetrou & Co and Others v Council and Others (T‑179/18, not published, EU:T:2021:267); of 5 May 2021, Papaconstantinou and Others v Council and Others (T‑188/18, not published, EU:T:2021:268); of 5 May 2021, Vital Capital Investments and Others v Council and Others (T‑196/18, not published, EU:T:2021:269); of 5 May 2021, Nessim Daoud and Others v Council and Others (T‑208/18, not published, EU:T:2021:272); of 12 May 2021, JV Voscf and Others v Council and Others (T‑197/18, not published, EU:T:2021:270); of 12 May 2021, Chrysses Demetriades & Co. and Provident Fund of the Employees of Chrysses Demetriades & Co v Council and Others (T‑198/18, not published, EU:T:2021:271); and of 28 May 2021, Makhlouf v Commission and ECB (T‑260/18, not published, EU:T:2021:305); judgment of 9 February 2022, QI and Others v Commission and ECB (T‑868/16, EU:T:2022:58); orders of 22 February 2022, Brinkmann (Steel Trading) and Others v Commission and ECB (T‑161/15, not published, EU:T:2022:96); of 21 July 2022, Fersher Developments and Lisin v Commission and ECB (T‑200/18, not published, EU:T:2022:478); and of 30 November 2022, Basicmed Enterprises and Others v Council and Others (T‑379/16, not published, EU:T:2022:770).
32 Due to the overlap in the content of those cases, some of the work invoiced related without distinction to all the cases cited in paragraph 31 above (‘the 16 cases’), while some related only to the 9 cases brought in 2018, namely the cases which gave rise to the orders of 5 May 2021, APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others (T‑147/18, not published, EU:T:2021:266); of 5 May 2021, Scordis, Papapetrou & Co and Others v Council and Others (T‑179/18, not published, EU:T:2021:267); of 5 May 2021, Papaconstantinou and Others v Council and Others (T‑188/18, not published, EU:T:2021:268); of 5 May 2021, Vital Capital Investments and Others v Council and Others (T‑196/18, not published, EU:T:2021:269); of 5 May 2021, Nessim Daoud and Others v Council and Others (T‑208/18, not published, EU:T:2021:272); of 12 May 2021, JV Voscf and Others v Council and Others (T‑197/18, not published, EU:T:2021:270); of 12 May 2021, Chrysses Demetriades & Co. and Provident Fund of the Employees of Chrysses Demetriades & Co v Council and Others (T‑198/18, not published, EU:T:2021:271); of 28 May 2021, Makhlouf v Commission and ECB (T‑260/18, not published, EU:T:2021:305); and of 21 July 2022, Fersher Developments and Lisin v Commission and ECB (T‑200/18, not published, EU:T:2022:478; ‘the 2018 cases’); and some work related to one case in particular.
33 It follows from that invoice that the total lawyers’ fees are broken down as follows:
– an amount of EUR 13 263.50 attributable to the 16 cases;
– an amount of EUR 6 219 attributable to the 2018 cases;
– an amount of EUR 10 417.50 attributable to the particular work carried out in respect of five cases specifically referred to in the invoice, which did not include the main case.
34 Although the applications in the 16 cases were lodged at the Court Registry on different dates, between 5 March 2014 and 25 April 2018, they all formed part of a series of actions for damages brought following the financial measures adopted concerning Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd and Trapeza Kyprou Dimosia Etaireia Ltd, with the exception of the case giving rise to the judgment of 9 February 2022, QI and Others v Commission and ECB (T‑868/16, EU:T:2022:58), which concerned an action for damages in the context of the restructuring of the Greek public debt. They were also all the subject of a stay of proceedings pending delivery of the judgment on appeal, with the result that the contentious proceedings took place at the same time when they resumed in December 2020 and the Court invited the parties to submit their observations on the inferences to be drawn from that judgment (see paragraph 7 above).
35 In a situation such as that in the present case – characterised by the presence of a series of cases raising identical or similar legal issues and in respect of which the contentious proceedings take place, for some of the stages, at the same time – expenses related to the work which each of those proceedings generated for the lawyers of an institution of the Union can be fixed, as suggested by the ECB, on the basis of an apportionment of the total costs of the expenses between the different cases, provided that that apportionment satisfies objective and reasonable criteria. Indeed, that method for fixing costs, on the one hand, makes it possible to take account of the fact that a significant part of the work done concerns all the cases at issue without distinction and, on the other hand, limits the amount that has to be borne, in the end, by the parties who are ordered to pay the costs in each case (see order of 10 December 2018, Mallis and Malli v Commission and ECB, T‑327/13 DEP, not published, EU:T:2018:1000, paragraph 27).
36 On the basis of the invoice produced by the ECB, the proportion of the expenses relating to the main proceedings would comprise, first, 1/16th of the expenses attributable to the 16 cases, namely EUR 828.96, and, second, 1/9th of the expenses attributable to the 2018 cases, namely EUR 691. Those two amounts correspond to the EUR 1 519.97 claimed by the ECB.
– The number of hours of work objectively necessary
37 It is appropriate to determine, first, the amount of work which the proceedings generated for the ECB’s lawyers, on the one hand, in respect of the 16 cases and, on the other hand, in respect of the 2018 cases, and, second, the apportionment of the resulting amounts between the various cases.
38 In the first place, as regards the amount of work which the proceedings generated for the ECB’s lawyers in respect of the 16 cases, the ECB claims, by way of lawyers’ fees and in accordance with the invoice produced, the amount of EUR 13 263.50 corresponding to 60.8 hours of work. It is apparent from the invoice produced by the ECB that those hours are broken down as follows:
– 15.9 hours of work at an hourly rate of EUR 340;
– 44.9 hours of work at an hourly rate of EUR 175.
39 That invoice refers to the involvement of two lawyers in the 16 cases: first, an associate lawyer who carried out most of the work of drafting master observations common to the 16 cases, regarding the inferences to be drawn in those cases from the delivery of the judgment on appeal; and, second, an experienced partner whose participation consisted mainly in reviewing, supervising and coordinating work, including with staff of the ECB.
40 It should be noted, in that regard, that while, in principle, the remuneration of only one agent, adviser or lawyer is recoverable, it is possible that, depending on the individual circumstances and, most importantly, the complexity of each case, the fees of a number of lawyers may be considered ‘necessary expenses’ under Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure (see, by analogy, order of 21 July 2016, Panrico v Bimbo, C‑591/12 P‑DEP, not published, EU:C:2016:591, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
41 In taxing costs in those circumstances, the Court must examine the extent to which the services supplied by all the advisers concerned were necessary for the conduct of the legal proceedings and satisfy itself that the fact that several lawyers were instructed did not entail any unnecessary duplication of costs (see, to that effect, orders of 28 June 2004, Airtours v Commission, T‑342/99 DEP, EU:T:2004:192, paragraph 44, and of 3 May 2012, CSL Behring v Commission and EMA, T‑264/07 DEP, not published, EU:T:2012:211, paragraph 26).
42 Indeed, the assistance provided by less experienced lawyers to lawyers with primary responsibility in complex litigation facilitates the task of the latter and is likely to reduce substantially the total amount of the costs (order of 10 December 2018, Chatzithoma v Commission and ECB, T‑329/13 DEP, not published, EU:T:2018:983, paragraph 35). In the present case, the involvement of two lawyers appears justified when, as in this case, it concerns a significant number of cases relating to similar legal issues. In that context, the rereading and review by a more experienced lawyer of the work carried out by an associate lawyer does not necessarily imply a duplication of efforts.
43 However, it must be pointed out that coordination costs between the representatives of the same party cannot be regarded as necessary costs to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the amount of recoverable costs (see orders of 21 May 2014, Esge v OHIM – De’Longhi Benelux (KMIX), T‑444/10 DEP, not published, EU:T:2014:356, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited, and of 21 January 2021, Biasotto v EUIPO – Oofos (OOF and OO), T‑453/18 DEP and T‑454/18 DEP, not published, EU:T:2021:40, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
44 Thus, although the nature of the dispute justified the ECB being represented by two lawyers, the amounts claimed for coordination and communications between those lawyers cannot be included in the recoverable costs. The same is true of the expenses relating to the telephone calls between those lawyers and ECB staff, which constitute coordination costs within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 43 above that cannot be taken into account in the assessment of the hours of work objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings.
45 It should, however, be noted that some of the items invoiced at times group together the preparation of the observations common to the 16 cases with telephone calls or other coordination tasks between the external lawyers and ECB staff. In those circumstances, given that the expenses arising from that coordination are not recoverable, the aforementioned items must be assessed strictly. Accordingly, 7.9 hours at an hourly rate of EUR 340, corresponding to the tasks performed on 26 January and on 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22 February 2021, and 2.6 hours at an hourly rate of EUR 175, corresponding to the tasks performed on 28 January and on 1 March 2021, are excluded as non-recoverable.
46 It is, therefore, necessary to examine whether the remaining 50.3 hours of work may be regarded as having been necessary for the purposes of the legal proceedings in the 16 cases.
47 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the invoice produced by the ECB concerns work carried out during the period from January 2021 to March 2021, when the proceedings in the 16 cases resumed following delivery of the judgment on appeal. Thus, the 50.3 hours of work concern only a specific stage of the proceedings in those cases.
48 The ECB lodged observations on the judgment on appeal in the 16 cases, with the exception of the case which gave rise to the order of 5 May 2021, APG Intercon and Others v Council and Others (T‑147/18, not published, EU:T:2021:266), in which the applicants’ letter informing the Court of their intention to discontinue the proceedings was sent before the ECB lodged its observations. However, the ECB started preparatory work prior to the discontinuance of the proceedings in that case.
49 It is apparent from the invoice from the ECB’s lawyers that they drafted an initial, master document for the 16 cases, which was then adapted to the specific features of each case. It may, however, be accepted that the preparation of those documents entailed a significant workload.
50 In those circumstances, in the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be concluded that those 50.3 hours of work, comprising 8 hours of work by the partner and 42.3 hours of work by the associate lawyer, appear to be justified.
51 In the second place, as regards the amount of work generated by the legal proceedings for the ECB’s lawyers in respect of the 2018 cases, it is apparent from the invoice produced by the ECB that their fees amount to EUR 6 219 corresponding to 34.5 hours of work broken down as follows:
– 1.1 hours of work at an hourly rate of EUR 340;
– 33.4 hours of work at an hourly rate of EUR 175.
52 It is apparent from that invoice that the associate lawyer carried out most of the work, consisting essentially in the drafting of a defence common to all the 2018 cases. The partner reviewed that document on one occasion only. Those tasks were carried out between 4 and 24 March 2021.
53 In that regard, it should be noted that the applicants in the 2018 cases, with the exception of those that gave rise to the orders of 28 May 2021, Makhlouf v Commission and ECB (T‑260/18, not published, EU:T:2021:305), and of 21 July 2022, Fersher Developments and Lisin v Commission and ECB (T‑200/18, not published, EU:T:2022:478), discontinued their action before the ECB lodged its defence. Indeed, between 22 February 2021 and 17 March 2021, the applicants in the seven cases, including the main case, informed the Court that they intended to discontinue the proceedings. Pending delivery of the Court’s orders removing the cases from the register, the ECB applied on 25 and 26 March 2021 for an extension of the time limits for lodging those defences in order to avoid incurring unnecessary costs. On 25, 26 and 29 March 2021, the Court granted those applications and set a new time limit of 17 May 2021 for the lodging of the defence in those seven cases. In the main proceedings, the order removing the case from the register was made on 5 May 2021 (see paragraph 8 above), with the result that the defence was not lodged. The ECB submits, however, that it had to proceed with drafting such a defence ‘for reasons of legal prudence’.
54 However, it should be noted that, in the main case, the discontinuance by the applicants was notified to the ECB on 1 March 2021, with the result that the preparatory work carried out by the ECB’s lawyers cannot be accepted as necessary for the purposes of the proceedings for that case. In the light of those considerations, the proportion of the expenses incurred by the ECB’s lawyers in drafting a joint defence for the 2018 cases cannot be borne by the applicants in the main case.
– The hourly rates applicable
55 As regards the hourly rate applicable, it should be borne in mind that, in the absence, as EU law currently stands, of a scale in that regard, it is only where the average hourly rate invoiced appears manifestly excessive that the Court may depart from it and fix ex aequo et bono the amount of recoverable fees for lawyers and expert economists (see order of 19 January 2021, Romańska v Frontex, T‑212/18 DEP, not published, EU:T:2021:30, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).
56 The taking into account of a high hourly rate appears appropriate only to remunerate the services of professionals who have performed their duties efficiently and rapidly and must, consequently, be counterbalanced by a necessarily strict assessment of the total number of hours’ work necessary for the purposes of the proceedings (see order of 30 April 2018, European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA, T‑158/12 DEP, not published, EU:T:2018:295, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).
57 In the present case, it should be recalled that the hourly rate of the partner was set at EUR 340 and that of the associate lawyer at EUR 175.
58 In view of the characteristics of the present case and the number of hours regarded as necessary for the purpose of the proceedings in the 16 cases, namely 50.3 hours, the Court considers that the hourly rates invoiced by the ECB’s lawyers do not appear to be manifestly excessive, such rates being considered reasonable for the type of litigation at issue in the present case.
59 As regards the apportionment of the amount resulting from paragraph 50 above between the 16 cases, in the light of the applicable hourly rates referred to in paragraph 57 above, it must be held that the method of apportionment proposed by the ECB (see paragraph 35 above) is objective and reasonable. It is, therefore, for the applicants to bear 1/16th of the amount of EUR 10 122.50. That amount corresponds to 8 hours of work at an hourly rate of EUR 340 and 42.3 hours of work at an hourly rate of EUR 175 for the 16 cases.
60 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the Court considers that the costs recoverable by the ECB will be fairly assessed by fixing their amount in this case at EUR 632.65.
The costs relating to the present taxation of costs proceedings
61 As regards the sum of EUR 1 250 claimed by the ECB for the conduct of the present taxation of costs proceedings, it should be borne in mind that, 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 expenses necessarily incurred in relation to the taxation of costs proceedings (see order of 11 April 2019, Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO – Urgo recherche innovation et développement (Immunostad), T‑403/16 DEP, not published, EU:T:2019:249 paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).
62 According to settled case-law, an application for taxation of costs is of a fairly standardised nature and is characterised, generally, by the absence of any difficulty for the lawyer who has already dealt with the substance of the case (see order of 11 April 2019, Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO – Urgo recherche innovation et développement (Immunostad), T‑403/16 DEP, not published, EU:T:2019:249 paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
63 As regards the claim relating to the costs incurred by the ECB’s lawyers in the present taxation of costs proceedings, the ECB states that, as those proceedings are still ongoing, it does not yet have an invoice in that regard. However, it submits that, under an agreement concluded with the external law firm, the amount attributable to the present taxation of costs proceedings corresponds to EUR 1 250.
64 That contract concerns 12 cases, namely the cases which gave rise to the orders of 5 May 2021, Anastasiou v Commission and ECB (T‑149/14, not published, EU:T:2021:276); of 5 May 2021, Pavlides v Commission and ECB (T‑150/14, not published, EU:T:2021:261); of 5 May 2021, Vassiliou v Commission and ECB (T‑151/14, not published, EU:T:2021:262); of 5 May 2021, Medilab v Commission and ECB (T‑152/14, not published, EU:T:2021:263); of 5 May 2021, Basicmed Enterprises and Others v Council and Others (T‑379/16, not published, EU:T:2021:264); of 5 May 2021, Scordis, Papapetrou & Co and Others v Council and Others (T‑179/18, not published, EU:T:2021:267); of 5 May 2021, Papaconstantinou and Others v Council and Others (T‑188/18, not published, EU:T:2021:268); of 5 May 2021, Vital Capital Investments and Others v Council and Others (T‑196/18, not published, EU:T:2021:269); of 5 May 2021, Nessim Daoud and Others v Council and Others (T‑208/18, not published, EU:T:2021:272); of 12 May 2021, JV Voscf and Others v Council and Others (T‑197/18, not published, EU:T:2021:270); of 12 May 2021, Chrysses Demetriades & Co. and Provident Fund of the Employees of Chrysses Demetriades & Co v Council and Others (T‑198/18, not published, EU:T:2021:271); of 21 July 2022, Fersher Developments and Lisin v Commission and ECB (T‑200/18, not published, EU:T:2022:478); and of 30 November 2022, Basicmed Enterprises and Others v Council and Others (T‑379/16, not published, EU:T:2022:770).
65 The ECB nonetheless states that, under the agreement referred to in paragraph 63 above, a ceiling of EUR 1 000 was established for each of those 12 cases, plus a one-time payment of EUR 3 000 for finalising a master cost taxation application as well as any additional logistical work on those cases. The ECB contends that the work carried out for the present taxation of costs case corresponds to 4.8 hours of work at an hourly rate of EUR 260. Thus, 57.6 hours of work at an hourly rate of EUR 260 would be attributable to the preparation of 12 applications for taxation of costs.
66 In that regard, although 4.8 hours of work appear to be reasonable for the purpose of making an application for taxation of costs relating to one set of main proceedings in isolation, it must be borne in mind that the present application is made in the context of applications for taxation of costs in the 12 cases referred to above. In those circumstances, only 30 hours appear to be necessary for the preparation of such applications.
67 As regards the hourly rate applicable, it should be noted that it does not correspond to those applied in the main case, namely EUR 175 for the associate lawyer and EUR 340 for the partner. However, an hourly rate of EUR 260 also does not appear to be manifestly excessive.
68 Consequently, the amount relating to the present taxation of costs proceedings must be set at 1/12th of the amount of EUR 7 800, namely EUR 650.
The claim relating to the allocation of recoverable costs
69 By its first head of claim, the ECB also asks the Court to declare the applicants jointly and severally liable for reimbursement of the amount of recoverable costs.
70 In that regard, it is sufficient to note that, under Article 170(1) of the Rules of Procedure, read in conjunction with Article 140(b) thereof, the power of the Court, when hearing an application for taxation of costs, is limited to determining the amount of recoverable costs. In the context of the present order, it is, therefore, not called upon to rule on the ECB’s claim relating to the allocation of recoverable costs, with the result that the latter must be dismissed (see order of 19 June 2018, Accorinti and Others v ECB, T‑224/12 DEP, not published, EU:T:2018:366, paragraph 38).
The request for an authenticated copy of the order for the purposes of enforcement
71 In its third head of claim, the ECB requests that an authenticated copy of the present order be delivered to it.
72 In that regard, it is sufficient, first, to observe that, in accordance with Article 280 TFEU, the present order is enforceable in the conditions laid down in Article 299 TFEU. Second, even though Article 170(4) of the Rules of Procedure expressly gives the parties the right to request an authenticated copy of the order for the purposes of enforcement, there is no need to give a formal ruling on that request, as it is purely a matter of administration and falls outside the subject matter of the present dispute concerning taxation of the parties’ recoverable costs (see, to that effect, order of 6 June 2019, Damm v EUIPO – Schlossbrauerei Au, Willibald Beck Freiherr von Peccoz (EISKELLER) (T‑859/16 DEP, not published, EU:T:2019:402, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
73 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the Court considers that the costs recoverable by the ECB will be fairly assessed by fixing their amount at EUR 1 282.65, which takes account of all the circumstances of the case up to the date of the present order.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)
hereby orders:
The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Mr Adonis Papaconstantinou and the other applicants, whose names are listed in the annex, to the European Central Bank (ECB) is fixed at EUR 1 282.65.
Luxembourg, 16 July 2024.