Orders nº T-120/14 DEP of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, March 10, 2020

Resolution DateMarch 10, 2020
Issuing OrganizationTribunal General de la Unión Europea
Decision NumberT-120/14 DEP

(Procedure - Taxation of costs - Recoverable costs)

In Case T-120/14 DEP

PT Ciliandra Perkasa, established in West Jakarta (Indonesia), represented by F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers,

applicant,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agent,

defendant,

supported by

European Biodiesel Board (EBB), established in Brussels (Belgium),

and by

European Commission,

interveners,

APPLICATION for taxation of costs further to the judgment of 15 September 2016, PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council (T-120/14, EU:T:2016:501),

THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of A.M. Collins, President, Z. Csehi (Rapporteur) and G. De Baere, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

Facts, procedure and forms of order sought

1 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 18 February 2014, the applicant, PT Ciliandra Perkasa, brought an action seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2, ‘the contested measure’) in so far as it imposed an anti-dumping duty on it.

2 By orders of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the General Court of 17 July 2014 and 22 September 2014, the European Commission and the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) were granted leave to intervene in the proceedings in support of the Council of the European Union.

3 By judgment of 15 September 2016, PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council, (T-120/14, EU:T:2016:501), the General Court annulled the contested measure in so far as it concerned the applicant. It ordered the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

4 By appeal lodged on 24 November 2016, the Council sought to have set aside, under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council (T-120/14, EU:T:2016:501).

5 By letter dated 22 January 2018, the Council informed the Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 148 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, that it was discontinuing its appeal.

6 By order of 16 February 2018, Council v PT Ciliandra Perkasa, (C-605/16 P, not published, EU:C:2018:155), the President of the Court removed Case C-605/16 P from the Court register and ordered the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

7 By email dated 17 May 2018, the applicant requested that the Council reimburse the total sum of EUR 151 030.27 in respect of the proceedings before the General Court and those before the Court of Justice.

8 By letter dated 25 July 2018, the Council stated that it disagreed with the amount of costs claimed by the applicant and offered to reimburse a total sum of EUR 25 324.74 in respect of both sets of proceedings, including, inter alia, 110 hours’ work at an hourly rate of EUR 225. The applicant rejected that offer by letter dated 11 September 2018 and once again claimed the amount initially sought.

9 By letter dated 10 January 2019, the Council reiterated that it disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant and offered to reimburse a total amount of EUR 32 824.74 in respect of both sets of proceedings.

10 Given that the applicant and the Council failed to reach agreement on the amount of recoverable costs, by document lodged at the General Court Registry on 19 February 2019 the applicant lodged an application for taxation of costs pursuant to Article 170(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, claiming that the Court should set the amount of recoverable costs to be reimbursed by the Council at EUR 156 527.27 in respect of both sets of proceedings.

11 In its observations lodged at the General Court Registry on 3 May 2019, the Council claims that the General Court should dismiss the application for taxation of costs as inadmissible in so far as it concerns the costs relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice, reject the applicant’s claim and set the amount of recoverable costs in respect of the proceedings before the General Court at EUR 26 874.77.

12 Following a change in the composition of the Chambers of the General Court, the Judge-Rapporteur was assigned to the Third Chamber, to which the present case has therefore been assigned, in accordance with Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

Law

The costs incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court of Justice

13 As regards the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Court of Justice, it must be noted that, pursuant to Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, a decision as to costs is to be given in the judgment or order which closes the proceedings.

14 By order of 16 February 2018, Council v PT Ciliandra Perkasa (C-605/16 P, EU:C:2018:155), the President of the Court of Justice removed Case C-605/16 P from the Court register as a result of the Council having discontinued its appeal. The Court also ordered the Council to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

15 In accordance with Article 145 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, an application for taxation of costs in respect of proceedings before the Court of Justice falls within the competence of the latter and outside that of the General Court (see order of 29 June 2015, Reber v OHIM - Klusmeier (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM), T-530/10 DEP, not published, EU:T:2015:482, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited).

16 In the present case, by order of 15 October 2019, PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council (C-605/16 P-DEP, not published, EU:C:2019:885), the Court set the total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the Council to the applicant in respect of Case C-605/16 P at EUR 11 000.

17 Therefore it is not for the General Court to assess the costs claimed in relation to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice.

The costs incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the General Court

18 Under Article 170(3) of the Rules of Procedure, if there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the Court, at the request of the party concerned, is to give its decision by way of an order from which no appeal may lie, after giving the party concerned by the application an opportunity to submit its observations.

19 Under Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure, expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings, in particular travel and subsistence expenses...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT