Case T‑163/20 DEP
Isopix SA
v
European Parliament
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 7 September 2021
(Procedure – Taxation of costs)
1. Judicial proceedings – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Concept – Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties – Elements to be taken into consideration
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 140(b))
(see paragraphs 20, 22, 23)
2. Judicial proceedings – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Elements to be taken into consideration – Fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers – Determination of the fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs – Taxation on the basis of precise information provided by the applicant or, in the absence of such information, on the basis of a strict assessment by the EU judicature
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 140(b))
(see paragraphs 21, 32, 33)
3. Judicial proceedings – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Involvement of more than one lawyer – Irrelevant – Assessment having regard primarily to the total number of hours’ work objectively necessary for the purpose of the proceedings
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 140(b))
(see paragraph 36)
4. Judicial proceedings – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties – Fees paid by a company to its lawyer – Included – Elements to be taken into consideration for the purposes of taxation – Significance of the proceedings from the point of view of EU law and difficulties presented by the case – Factors relevant to their assessment
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 140(b))
(see paragraphs 40-42)
5. Judicial proceedings – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties – Courier fees incurred in connection with opening an e-Curia account – Not included
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 140(b))
(see paragraphs 61-63)
Résumé
The applicant, Isopix SA, brought an action seeking, primarily, annulment of two acts of the European Parliament rejecting the bid submitted by that company in the context of an invitation to tender and awarding the public contract relating thereto to another tenderer.
Following two applications for interim measures made by the applicant, the President of the General Court ordered, in essence, on 25 May 2020, (1) the suspension of the operation of one of the two acts pending the decision bringing the main proceedings to a close.
However, following the annulment by the Parliament of the public procurement procedure at issue, the Court held, on 29 October 2020, (2) that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the applicant’s action. Furthermore, it ordered the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant in connection with the main proceedings and the proceedings for interim measures which had been conducted.
Since the parties did not agree on the amount of costs to be recovered, the applicant lodged an application for taxation of costs with the Court. (3)
By the present order, the Court fixes the total amount of costs which the Parliament is to pay to the applicant. It rules, for the first time, on certain questions relating to the taxation of recoverable costs in proceedings before it. (4)
Findings of the Court
As a preliminary point, the Court recalls that, as regards recoverable costs, which are limited to the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings, it must make an unfettered assessment of the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings and 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 or advisers involved and the financial interests which the parties had in the proceedings.
In the first place, the Court notes that, in the present case, the significance of the proceedings from the point of view of EU law was limited since no novel or particularly complex questions were raised by the main proceedings and the proceedings for interim measures. Nor did the examination of those proceedings reveal anything of significance with respect to the development of EU law. The fact that it is unusual for the President of the General Court to decide on the suspension of the operation of a measure adopted by an EU institution cannot, in itself, constitute an indication that the case has particular significance from the point of view of EU law.
Furthermore, the allegedly unusual nature of those interim decisions means only that the chance of obtaining the suspension of the operation of a measure is lower than that of having an application for suspension rejected; nevertheless, this does not necessarily cause difficulties for the lawyers in terms of the amount of work or the complexity of the legal issues raised in the cases concerned.
Similarly, while the applicant’s lawyers may have had to work within tight time limits, this cannot have an impact on the amount of their work or on the complexity of the legal issues raised.
In the second place, the Court holds that the courier fees incurred by the applicant in connection with sending the documents relating to the opening of an e-Curia account to the Registry of the General Court cannot be considered to have been necessarily incurred for the purpose of the main proceedings (T‑163/20) or the proceedings for interim measures (T‑163/20 R). It notes that the opening of such an account by a representative is subject to, inter alia, that representative having the professional status of an agent or lawyer authorised to practise before a national court. That account is to be opened in the name of the lawyer requesting it and is to be used for any case brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union.
In the present case, the applicant could have sent the documents necessary to complete the opening of its e-Curia account to the Registry of the General Court after filing its application initiating proceedings and its application for interim measures. The conditions of use of e-Curia (5) provide for a special procedure which enables an e-Curia account to be opened provisionally in order that procedural documents may be lodged with the Court. Thus, where a representative has not taken the requisite steps to open that account in good time before the expiry of the time limit for lodging a procedural document with the Court, it is possible for that representative to open an account on a provisional basis in order to lodge that document. In order for the creation of that account to be validated by the Registry of the General Court, the representative must send it the required documents within 10 days of the date on which the procedural document was lodged via e-Curia.