Order of the Second Chamber of the Court Of 1 July 1981 DGV Deutsche Getreideverwertung und Rheinische Kraftfutterwerke GmbH and Others ν European Economic Community Joined Cases 241, 242 and 246 to 249/78
Grade B
mapped from publisher markup. A grade says how a document's structure was obtained, not how reliable the law is.
Not the law itself: Judgment
Address https://gelex.eu/eli/EU/judgment/61978O0241(01)@1981-07-01/en
In Joined Cases 241/78 DGV Deutsche Getreideverwertung und Rheinische KraftfutTERWERKE GmbH, 242/78 Werhahn Hansamühle, 246/78 SPRL Maselis Frères, 247/78 Codrico BV, 248/78 Hansa-Lagerhaus Ströh, 249/78 BV Meelfabriek Weert, applicants,V European Economic Community, represented by its institutions : 1. Council of the European Communities, 2. Commission of the European Communities, defendant, APPLICATIONS relating to the taxation of recoverable costs, THE COURT (Second Chamber) composed of: P. Pescatore, President of Chamber, O. Due and A. Chloros, Judges, Advocate General: F. Capotorti Registrar: A. Van Houtte makes the following
ORDER
Facts and Issues
sec_1
sec_1
1. By order of 1 July 1981 the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the action.
2. In their statements of 5 January 1981 the applicants asked the Court to adjudicate on the amount of the recoverable costs being the fees and remuneration of the lawyers who represented them before the Court.
3. The applicants claim that the recoverable costs should be determined as follows: Case 241/78 DM 166845.91 Case 242/78 DM 44585.09 Case 246/78 DM 38242.70 Case 247/78 DM 51218.13 Case 248/78 DM 9966.94 Case 249/78 DM 38571.19
4. They further claim that these sums should be increased by interest at 10% as from the lodging of the application for the determination of costs.
5. The applicants state that they have calculated these sums in accordance with the Bundesgebührenordnung für Rechtsanwälte [Federal scale fixing lawyers' fees] of 26 July 1957 (BGBl. I, p. 907) in the version of 20 August 1975 (BGBl. I, p. 2189).
6. They claim that, even if the Court does not have regard to the Bundesgebührenordnung, the fees requested, which represent less than 2% of the amounts claimed in the applications, are in accordance with the Court's requirements as regards the importance of the cases, their degree of difficulty and their amount. Except as regards the presentation of oral argument, there are no grounds for taking into account the fact that the applicants were represented by the same lawyers.
7. With regard to the reasons for their claim for default interest the applicants refer to Article 104 (1) of the German code of procedure. They further point out that, from the moment of the lodging of the application, the determination of the recoverable costs and hence the date on which they are paid no longer depends on the party lodging the application.
8. The Commission asks the Court by a decision on costs according to the provisions of Article 69 (5) of the Rules of Procedure, to fix the costs of representation before the Court, to be reimbursed to the applicants by the defendant, at an amount of DM 75000, plus postal, telephone and telex charges together with travel expenses incurred by one lawyer. This amount covers also Case 250/78, which was disjoined from these cases by order of the Court of 13 May 1980 and in which the applicant claimed the sum of DM 13815.82 costs, and Case 238/78, Ireks-Arkady, in which the applicant claimed the sum of DM 34232.88.
9. The Commission states that it is not a matter of determining the fees which the parties to the dispute may own their lawyers, but of the reimbursement by the party ordered to bear the costs of the indispensable expenses incurred by the other side. It points out that in all the cases the amounts claimed have been reduced and that the Community is not therefore required to bear the totality of the costs. Although the proceedings in question may without doubt be described as very difficult, account should nevertheless be taken of the fact that the problems in question had already been dealt with in Joined Cases 124/76 and 20/77, Moulins et Huileries de Pont-à-Mousson and Others ν Office National Interprofessionnel des Céréales and in Joined Cases 117/76 and 16/77, Ruckdeschel and Others ν Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen and Diamalt v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe (judgments of 19 October 1977, [1977] ECR 1795 and 1753), and in Case 90/78, Granaria v Council and Commission (judgment of 28 March 1979, [1979] ECR 1081). Moreover there would be no justification for drawing up an account for each case as these were joined cases, that is to say, cases presenting identical legal problems. Although it is true that each of the applicants might have chosen a different legal representative, nevertheless the calculation of the costs to be reimbursed must, in the Commission's view, be based on the situation actually existing.
Decision
sec_2
1 According to Article 73 (b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the following are to be regarded as recoverable costs:... 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.
2 As the Commission has correctly observed, the Court is not called upon to tax the fees due by the parties to their own lawyers but to determine the extent to which such remuneration may be recovered from the party ordered to bear the costs. It follows that the Court is not required to have regard to a national scale fixing lawyers' fees.
3 As Community law has not laid down any provisions in the nature of a scale, the Court must undertake a free appreciation of the facts of the dispute having regard to its object and nature, its importance from the point of view of Community law and the difficulties of the proceedings, the amount of work which the litigation may have caused the lawyer and what the dispute may have meant to the parties in financial terms.
4 As regards these cases, account must also be taken of the fact that the legal problems were identical for all the cases, that they were joined for the purposes of the procedure and that all the applicants were represented by the same lawyers. It is therefore appropriate to fix the recoverable costs for all these cases at a comprehensive figure to be divided amongst the applicants in proportion to the compensation awarded to each of them.
5 Regard being had to the new and important questions of Community law raised in these cases as well as their financial importance and the considerable extent of the lawyers' work it is appropriate in this instance to determine the recoverable costs at DM 100000 plus postal, telephone, telex, photocopying and travelling expenses. In view of the importance of the cases and the number of applicants it is proper to provide travelling expenses for two lawyers.
6 In view of the fact that the Court, in determining the costs to be recovered, has taken account of all the circumstances of the cases until the date of determination, the applicants' claim for default interest from the lodging of their application for the taxation of costs must be dismissed.
On those grounds, THE COURT (Second Chamber) hereby orders as follows :
1. The costs to be reimbursed by the defendant to the applicants are fixed at the sum of DM 100000 plus postal, telephone, telex and travelling expenses for two lawyers.
2. The recoverable costs are to be shared between the applicants in proportion to the amount of compensation awarded to each of them.
Luxembourg, 1 July 1981. A. Van Houtte Registrar P. Pescatore President of the Second Chamber