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 (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2009.#Risto Suvikas v Council of the European Union.#Public service - Taxation of costs.#Case F-6/07 DEP.

ECLI:EU:F:2009:74

62007FO0006

July 1, 2009
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

(Civil service – Procedure – Taxation of costs)

Application: by which Mr Suvikas applied for taxation of costs relating to the judgment of 8 May 2008 in Case F-6/07 Suvikas v Council [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000.

Held: The amount of the costs recoverable by the applicant in Case F-6/07 Suvikas v Council is fixed at EUR 11 640.

Summary

1.Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Elements to be taken into consideration – Scale of adviser’s work

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122)

2.Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Office and telecommunication costs

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122)

1.When assessing the scale of work by a party’s adviser in the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal 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. While concise documents may be as much a reflection of their author’s ability to summarise, saving the Tribunal and the other party time, as a sign of quick work, the length of the documents cannot, in principle, be regarded as necessarily implying that the case objectively required a large amount of work.

(see paras 24, 26)

See:

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

F‑100/05 DEP Chatziioannidou v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, para. 24

2.Where an appropriate computer system is not used, it is virtually impossible for a lawyer’s chambers to justify the share of office and telecommunication costs chargeable for each case in the chambers’ various operating costs. Consequently, where the various operating costs attributable to a particular case may be regarded as not included in the fee, it may be reasonable, in order to determine the amount of recoverable costs, to set a fixed sum.

(see para. 38)

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