- 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 (Second Chamber, extended composition) of 12 December 1997. # Detlef Nölle v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities. # Taxation of costs. # Case T-167/94 (92).
ECLI:EU:T:1997:195
61994TO0167
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
61994B0167
European Court reports 1997 Page II-02379
Summary
Keywords
1 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties - Travel and subsistence expenses and remuneration of agents, advisers or lawyers of the Community institutions - Conditions of recovery
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 17, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b))
2 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Concept - Factors to be taken into consideration
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))
Summary
3 Where, in proceedings before the Court of First Instance, an institution exercises the option, which it is recognized as having under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure before the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 46 thereof, to seek the assistance of a lawyer, the remuneration of the latter falls within the ambit of `expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings' within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
It follows, with regard to the reimbursement of travel expenses incurred by the institution's agent for the purpose of the oral procedure, that the fact that the lawyer of the institution was present during the hearing in no way precluded its agent from also being present, given that the latter's presence also met the need for the institution concerned to be appropriately represented. It follows that such travel expenses fall within the ambit of `expenses necessarily incurred ... for the purpose of the proceedings'.
4 In the absence of Community provisions laying down fee scales, the Community judicature must, when taxing costs pursuant to Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, freely assess the facts 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 dispute for the agents or advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings. In so doing, it is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers' fees or any agreement concluded in that regard between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.