- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, extended composition) of 30 October 1998. # Fort James France, formerly Kaysersberg SA v Commission of the European Communities. # Taxation of costs. # Case T-290/94 (92).
ECLI:EU:T:1998:255
61994TO0290(01)
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
Avis juridique important
61994B0290(01)
European Court reports 1998 Page II-04105
Summary
Keywords
1 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Factors to be taken into account (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 92(1))
2 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Concept - Participation of a number of lawyers (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b))
Summary
1 In the absence of Community provisions laying down fee scales, the Community judicature must, for the purposes of the taxation of costs, assess in its discretion the relevant features of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of Community law, as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the case for the agents or advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.
In that connection, the ability of the Community judicature to assess the value of the work done by a lawyer depends on the preciseness of the information provided.
2 Although, in principle, only the remuneration of a single lawyer may be regarded as falling within the concept of `expenses necessarily incurred' within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the primary consideration is none the less the total number of hours of work which may appear to be objectively necessary for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court, irrespective of the number of lawyers who may have provided the services in question.