Language of document : ECLI:EU:F:2012:147

(First Chamber)

25 October 2012

Case F‑50/09 DEP

Livio Missir mamachi di Lusignano


European Commission

(Procedure — Taxation of costs — Value added tax)

Application: for taxation of recoverable costs, on the basis of Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure, which Mr Missir Mamachi di Lusignano brought before the Tribunal in Case F‑50/09 Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, under Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Held: The amount of costs recoverable by the applicant from the Commission in respect of Case F‑50/09 is EUR 44 259.25.


1.      Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Involvement of more than one lawyer — No effect — Assessment mainly in the light of the total number of hours’ work objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(b))

2.      Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Definition — Value added tax — Inclusion in the case of a person not liable to tax

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(b))

1.      In assessing the amount of the recoverable costs and the amount of work generated by the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal, the primary consideration of the judicature is the total number of hours of work which may appear to be objectively necessary for the purpose of those proceedings, irrespective of the number of lawyers who may have provided the services in question.

(see paras 21, 26)


26 April 2010, F‑7/08 DEP Schönberger v Parliament, para. 29

2.      An applicant who is not a taxable person for the purposes of value added tax has no possibility of recovering the value added tax paid on the services for which his lawyers have invoiced him. Thus, the value added tax paid on the fees that are judged to be necessary represents for that person expenses incurred for the purpose of the proceedings within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

(see para. 31)


8 July 2004, T‑7/98 DEP, T‑208/98 DEP and T‑109/99 DEP De Nicola v EIB, para. 37