EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 May 2007. # Eleni Chatziioannidou v Commission of the European Communities. # Taxation of costs. # Case F-100/05 DEP.

ECLI:EU:F:2007:83

62005FO0100

May 16, 2007
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

(Procedure – Taxation of costs)

Application: under Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis to the Civil Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 3(4) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7), until the entry into force of its rules of procedure, in which Mrs Chatziioannidou seeks taxation of the costs relating to the judgment in Case F‑100/05 Chatziioannidou v Commission [2006] ECR‑SC I-A-1-000 and II‑A‑1-000.

Held: The amount of the costs recoverable by the applicant in Case F‑100/05 is fixed at EUR 10 222.

Summary

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Elements to be taken into consideration

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b); Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))

When assessing the scale of work involved in the proceedings before the Court in order to determine the amount of recoverable costs, the primary consideration of the Community judicature is the total number of hours of work which may appear to be objectively necessary for the purpose of those proceedings. The amount of an adviser’s fees cannot depend on the length of the documents he produces. Concise documents may be as much a reflection of their author’s ability to summarise, saving the Court and the other party time, as a sign of quick work. The brevity of a document cannot, in principle, be regarded as reflecting rapid or cursory work by the person who produces it.

(see paras 23-24)

See:

T-290/94 DEP Kaysersberg v Commission [1998] ECR II‑4105, para. 20; T-171/00 DEP Spruyt v Commission [2002] ECR‑SC I‑A‑225 and II‑1127, para. 29

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia