Corte di giustizia UE n. 91/2015

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 15 October 2015 ( * ) (Taxation of costs) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑601/12 P-DEP, APPLICATION for taxation of recoverable costs under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 145 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 22 June 2015, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Ltd, established in Zhouhan (China), defendant, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of J.L. da [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), President of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], acting as President of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C. Lycourgos and J.-C. Bonichot, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: Y. Bot, Registrar: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 The subject-matter of this action is the taxation of the costs incurred by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑601/12 P. 2 By an appeal lodged on 20 December 2012, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Ltd (‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’) sought to have set aside, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T‑150/09, EU:T:2012:529), by which that court dismissed its action for annulment of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1), in so far as that regulation imposes on the defendant a definitive anti-dumping duty. 3 By the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (C‑601/12 P, EU:C:2014:115), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed the appeal and ordered [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs relating to the appeal proceedings. 4 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] having not reached any agreement on the amount of the costs, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has made the present application. Arguments of the parties 5 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] requests the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to fix the amount of the recoverable costs at EUR 21 868.30, together with default interest at the rate of 3.65% per annum from 12 July 2014. This amount corresponds to the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the appeal proceedings, in particular lawyers’ fees corresponding to 66.5 hours of work. 6 By letter dated 16 June 2014, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] issued a letter of formal notice requesting [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay, before 11 July 2014, the amount of EUR 21 868.30 in respect of the costs the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] incurred in the appeal proceedings. 7 By letter of 21 November 2014, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] requested once more that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] pay that amount, whilst specifying that it was increased by default interest at the rate of 3.65% per annum, starting from 12 July 2014. 8 In support of its application, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claims that the legal issues stemming from the pleas raised by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in the appeal proceedings are clearly important from the point of view of EU law because of their relevance not only to this specific case, but also for other pending or future anti-dumping proceedings where similar issues have arisen, or could arise. 9 In particular, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] holds that the pleas relied on raised difficult and complex legal issues relating to proceedings for requests for [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 10 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has not submitted written observations to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 11 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 144(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 considered to be recoverable costs. 12 It is apparent from the wording of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 144(b) that the remuneration of a lawyer is one of the expenses necessarily incurred within the meaning of that provision (see the orders in Commission v Kallianos , C‑323/06 P-DEP, EU:C:2012:49, paragraph 10, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Commission , C‑554/11 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:706, paragraph 14). It also follows that the recoverable costs are limited, firstly, to expenses incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and, secondly, to expenses necessarily incurred for such purposes (see orders in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v TF1 , C‑451/10 P-DEP, EU:C:2012:323, paragraph 17, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑582/11 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:754, paragraph 17). 13 Moreover, it is settled case-law, as appears from the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 19 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, that the institutions are, as regards the manner in which they intend to be represented or assisted before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], free to decide whether they will have recourse to the assistance of a lawyer or to appoint as an agent either one of their officials or a person who is not a member of their staff (see to that effect orders in Dietz v Commission , 126/76 DEP, EU:C:1979:158, paragraphs 5 and 6, and Commission v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Henrikson , C‑409/96 P-DEP, EU:C:1999:389, paragraph 12). 14 In fixing the recoverable costs, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] takes account of all the circumstances of the case up to the delivery of the order on taxation of costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred in relation to the taxation of costs proceedings (see orders in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v TF1 , C‑451/10 P-DEP, EU:C:2012:323, paragraph 18, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑406/11 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:817, paragraph 10). 15 Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the Courts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are authorised, not to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers, but to determine the amount up to which that remuneration may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs (see orders in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Commission , C‑521/09 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:644, paragraph 15, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑406/11 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:817, paragraph 11). 16 In the absence of provisions of EU law laying down fee scales, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 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 economic interests which the parties had in the proceedings (orders in Commission v Marcuccio , C‑432/08 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:108, paragraph 23, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Commission , C‑521/09 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:644, paragraph 16). 17 When fixing the amount of the recoverable costs, it is appropriate to take account of the total number of hours’ work corresponding to the services provided and considered objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings concerned, irrespective of the number of lawyers who carried out that work (orders in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑582/11 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:754, paragraph 25, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑406/11 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:817, paragraph 13). 18 The amount of the recoverable costs must be assessed in the light of those criteria. 19 First, as regards the subject-matter and nature of the dispute, it should be observed that the proceedings concerned are appeal proceedings which are, by nature, limited to questions of law and do not concern themselves with findings as to the facts of the dispute, or the assessment of these. 20 Second, as regards the importance of the dispute from the point of view of EU law and the difficulties presented by the case, it must be stated that the appeal was confined to the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the grounds that underpin it in answering the first plea relied on at first instance, alleging that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decision was out of time. In this connection, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] relied on three grounds of appeal which raised no new question of law and did not present any specific complexity. 21 Third, with regard to the amount of work supplied, it is apparent, in the light of the above findings, that the drawing up by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and consequently, by the external lawyers of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], of the response in the appeal resulting in the judgment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (C‑601/12 P, EU:C:2014:115) did not necessitate an in-depth analysis, or a particularly significant workload since its drafting required consideration of only a limited number of questions. Furthermore, the lawyers instructed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in the appeal had already been able to acquire in-depth knowledge of the case before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in the context of the proceedings at first instance, in which they represented the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 22 Accordingly, the 66.5 hours of work dedicated by the lawyers instructed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to the preparation of the response to the appeal do not seem, in their entirety, ‘necessarily incurred … for the purpose of the proceedings’ within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 144(b) of the Rules of Procedure. 23 Fourth, and finally, regarding the economic interests at issue, in the dispute, for the parties, it is relevant that it was clearly in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s interest to seek at appeal the annulment of the contested regulation, since the latter subjected it to a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China. However, the fact remains that no evidence was submitted to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to indicate that the case presented an economic interest of an unusual nature either for [OSCURATO:PERSONA] or for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (see, to that effect, orders in TDK [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 , C‑197/07 P-DEP, EU:C:2012:579, paragraph 20, and Kronofrance v Germany and Others , C‑75/05 P-DEP and C‑80/05 P-DEP, EU:C:2013:458, paragraph 37). 24 In light of all the foregoing considerations and having regard to the criteria referred to in paragraph 16 of the present order, a fair assessment of the costs recoverable from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in relation to the proceedings in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑601/12 P will be made by fixing their total amount at the sum of EUR 9 000. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: The total amount of costs to be paid by [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Ltd to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑601/12 P is set at EUR 9 000. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.