C-261/23

ENORDER OF THE COURT (Tenth Chamber) 29 August 2025 (*) ( Taxation of costs ) In Case C‑261/23 P-DEP, APPLICATION for taxation of recoverable costs under Article 145 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, brought on 18 December 2024, Tech-Fab Europe eV, established in Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by J. Beck and L. Ruessmann, avocats, applicant, v Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE, established in Ain Sukhna (Egypt), Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE, established in Ain Sukhna, represented by B. Servais, avocat, defendant, THE COURT (Tenth Chamber), composed of D. Gratsias, President of the Chamber, J. Passer (Rapporteur) and B. Smulders, Judges, Advocate General: T. Ćapeta, Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, having regard to the written procedure, after hearing the Advocate General, makes the following Order 1        The present application concerns the taxation of the costs incurred by Tech-Fab Europe eV in Cases T‑301/20 and C‑261/23 P. 2        By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court of the European Union on 19 May 2020, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (together, ‘Hengshi and Jushi’) sought the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 of 1 April 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt (OJ 2020 L 108, p. 1), in so far as it concerns them. By order of 11 November 2020, the General Court granted Tech-Fab Europe leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the European Commission. 3        By judgment of 1 March 2023, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission (T‑301/20, EU:T:2023:93), the General Court dismissed that action as being unfounded. In addition, the General Court ordered Hengshi and Jushi to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. By contrast, the General Court ordered Tech-Fab Europe to bear its own costs. 4        By an appeal brought on 23 April 2023, under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Hengshi and Jushi sought to have that judgment set aside. 5        By judgment of 30 May 2024, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission (C‑261/23 P, EU:C:2024:440), the Court of Justice dismissed that appeal and ordered Hengshi and Jushi to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission and by Tech-Fab Europe in the appeal proceedings. 6        By letter of 23 August 2024, Tech-Fab Europe informed Hengshi and Jushi of the amount of the costs which it had incurred in Cases T‑301/20 and C‑261/23 P and requested them to pay it an amount in the sum of EUR 76 613.19 in respect of the costs which it considered that it had incurred. 7        No agreement having been reached between Hengshi and Jushi, on the one hand, and Tech-Fab Europe, on the other, on the amount of recoverable costs relating to the appeal in Case C‑261/23 P and to the proceedings at first instance in Case T‑301/20, Tech-Fab Europe brought the present application for taxation of costs under Article 145 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.  Forms of order sought 8        Tech-Fab Europe requests that the Court fix the total amount of costs for which Hengshi and Jushi are liable in Cases T‑301/20 and C‑261/23 P in the amount of EUR 73 288.79, together with default interest from 15 October 2024. 9        Hengshi and Jushi contend that the Court should: –        principally, dismiss Tech-Fab Europe’s application for taxation of costs in its entirety as manifestly inadmissible; –        in the alternative, limit the total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Hengshi and Jushi to the expenses necessarily incurred by Tech-Fab Europe in respect of Case C‑261/23 P only, together with default interest for the period between the date of service of the order on taxation of costs and the date of payment of the total amount owed, calculated at the rate applied by the European Central Bank (ECB) to its main refinancing operations in force on the first calendar day of the month in which the deadline for payment falls, increased by three and a half percentage points, and –        order Tech-Fab Europe to pay them a sum of EUR 1 200 to cover their costs relating to the present taxation of costs proceedings.  Arguments of the parties 10      Tech-Fab Europe submits that the purpose and nature of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice were very complex from a technical point of view and that the cases raised novel and significant issues from the point of view of EU law which required a difficult and in-depth analysis in order for Tech-Fab Europe to be able to defend its position. 11      In those two sets of proceedings, Tech-Fab Europe was represented by several lawyers, which was necessary, according to Tech-Fab Europe, on account of the difficulty and the complexity of the cases and did not lead to duplication of the work. On the contrary, the allocation of the work between a senior partner, a junior partner, and an associate, whose hours of work were invoiced at significantly different hourly rates, allowed an efficient and effective allocation of the tasks between those lawyers. 12      Tech-Fab Europe submits that the 237 hours provided by its lawyers and invoiced in respect of the representation in both cases, comprising 202.4 hours of representation in the written and oral parts of the proceedings in Case T‑301/20 and 34.5 hours in Case C‑261/23 P, constitute ‘expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings’, within the meaning of Article 144(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. 13      Tech-Fab Europe states that the arguments of Hengshi and Jushi were based, inter alia, on international law, and in particular on the findings of World Trade Organisation (WTO) panels and the WTO Appellate Body. The relevant issues therefore concerned not only very technical points of EU law relating to investigations to protect trade, but also WTO law. Those issues were both complex and very significant from the point of view of EU law. 14      In addition, Tech-Fab Europe claims that Cases T‑301/20 and C‑261/23 P were of very significant economic interest to Tech-Fab Europe and its members. Indeed, if the anti-dumping measures had not been upheld, it is likely that the EU industry concerned would have ceased its activities in the very short term. 15      It follows that, according to Tech-Fab Europe, the costs of EUR 73 288.79 in respect of the remuneration of its lawyers, comprising EUR 15 763.54 for the representation before the Court of Justice in Case C‑261/23 P and EUR 57 525.25 for the representation before the General Court in Case T‑301/20, are justified. 16      Hengshi and Jushi contend that Tech-Fab Europe’s application for the taxation of costs is manifestly inadmissible. 17      In particular, as regards the costs claimed by Tech-Fab Europe in respect of Case T‑301/20, Hengshi and Jushi contend that, by its judgment, the General Court ordered Tech-Fab Europe to bear its own costs. In addition, in the judgment of 30 May 2024, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission (C‑261/23 P, EU:C:2024:440), the Court of Justice did not order Hengshi and Jushi to pay the costs incurred by Tech-Fab Europe at first instance. 18      Furthermore, Hengshi and Jushi contend that it is apparent from Tech-Fab Europe’s application for taxation of costs and from Annex A.4 to that application that the lawyers’ fees for which Tech-Fab Europe seeks reimbursement were not claimed and invoiced to it, but to members of Tech-Fab Europe who were not parties to the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice, since only Tech-Fab Europe was an intervener at first instance and lodged a response before the Court of Justice. Therefore, Tech-Fab Europe is not entitled to claim the reimbursement of fees which it has not paid. 19      In any event, Hengshi and Jushi contend that the total number of hours spent by the lawyers of Tech-Fab Europe, namely 236.9 hours, manifestly exceeds what was necessary and reasonable for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice. In addition, numerous headings in the invoices sent to the members of Tech-Fab Europe by Tech-Fab Europe’s lawyers referred to other cases, which are not relevant for the purpose of determining the amount of recoverable costs in Case C‑260/23 P. 20      Lastly, Hengshi and Jushi contend that the costs which they incurred in order to respond to the present application for taxation of costs must be borne by Tech-Fab Europe. Four hours of work were necessary for that purpose, with the result that those costs amounted to a total of EUR 1 200.  Findings of the Court  Admissibility 21      Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the judgment or order which closes the proceedings. Article 184(2) of those rules, for its part, provides that, where the appeal is unfounded or where the appeal is well founded and the Court itself gives final judgment in the case, the Court is to make a decision as to the costs. 22      Furthermore, in accordance with 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. 23      In the present case, first, it is common ground that the General Court ruled on the costs relating to Case T‑301/20 in the judgment of 1 March 2023, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission (T‑301/20, EU:T:2023:93). 24      Second, the appeal brought by Hengshi and Jushi against that judgment of the General Court was dismissed by the judgment of 30 May 2024, Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission (C‑261/23 P, EU:C:2024:440). 25      It follows that the Court of Justice did not itself have to give final judgment in the case after declaring the appeal to be well founded and that, therefore, in that judgment, it ruled only on the costs relating to the appeal proceedings, to the exclusion of those relating to the proceedings at first instance. 26      Consequently, the present application for taxation of costs must be declared inadmissible in so far as it concerns the costs incurred by Tech-Fab Europe in Case T‑301/20. 27      Furthermore, Hengshi and Jushi contend that the present application for taxation of costs is manifestly inadmissible because the fees for which reimbursement is sought were not invoiced by the lawyers of Tech-Fab Europe directly to Tech-Fab Europe, but to members of Tech-Fab Europe who were not parties to the proceedings before the General Court and before the Court of Justice. 28      In that regard, it is apparent that those invoices contain all of the information necessary to ascertain what they cover, namely the fees that the law firm, to which J. Beck and L. Ruessmann, who represented Tech-Fab Europe before the Court, belong, contends are payable by Tech-Fab Europe for the purpose of the appeal proceedings in Case C‑261/23 P. In addition, it is clear from the file submitted to the Court, in particular from the letter of 28 November 2024 included as an annex to its application for taxation of costs by Tech-Fab Europe, that the members of Tech-Fab Europe, to whom the lawyers invoiced the fees, instructed Tech-Fab Europe to intervene in Case C‑261/23 P, on the one hand, and the lawyers to send them the fee invoices, on the other, in accordance with a cost allocation key concluded between the members of Tech-Fab Europe. Therefore, the fact that the names of those various members appear in those invoices must be regarded as being solely for the purpose of the payment of the fees due by Tech-Fab Europe (see, by analogy, order of 11 June 2020, Ferrero v BMB, C‑693/17 P‑DEP, EU:C:2020:449, paragraph 21). 29      Accordingly, in so far as it concerns the taxation of the costs incurred by Tech-Fab Europe in Case C‑261/23 P, the present application for taxation of costs is admissible.  Substance 30      Under Article 144(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to appeal proceedings in accordance with Article 184(1) of those rules, ‘expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings, in particular the travel and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of agents, advisers or lawyers’ are to be regarded as recoverable costs. 31      It is clear from the wording of Article 144(b) that the remuneration of a lawyer is one of the ‘expenses necessarily incurred’, within the meaning of that provision, and that recoverable costs are confined to the expenses necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings (order of 21 December 2023, Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, C‑54/20 P‑DEP, EU:C:2023:1032, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited). 32      It should also be recalled that the Courts of the European Union are not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers, but rather may determine the amount of those fees to be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. To that end, the Courts of the European Union are not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers’ fees (order of 21 December 2023, Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, C‑54/20 P‑DEP, EU:C:2023:1032, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited). 33      In the absence of provisions of EU law laying down fee scales, the Court must make an unfettered assessment of the facts of the case, taking into account the subject matter and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of EU 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 (order of 21 December 2023, Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, C‑54/20 P-DEP, EU:C:2023:1032, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited). 34      Furthermore, in fixing the recoverable costs, the Court takes account of all the circumstances of the case up to the delivery of the order on the taxation of the costs, including expenses necessarily incurred in relation to the taxation of costs proceedings (order of 21 December 2023, Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, C‑54/20 P-DEP, EU:C:2023:1032, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited). 35      It is in the light of those considerations that the Court must assess the amount of the costs recoverable by Tech-Fab Europe relating to Case C‑261/23 P. 36      As a preliminary point, it is apparent from paragraph 41 of the application for taxation of costs that the costs of EUR 73 288.79 in respect of the remuneration of Tech-Fab Europe’s lawyers are apportioned in the amount of EUR 15 763.54 in respect of the representation before the Court of Justice in Case C‑261/23 P and in the amount of EUR 57 525.25 in respect of the representation before the General Court in Case T‑301/20. 37      In so far as the application for taxation of costs relating to the proceedings in Case T‑301/20 is inadmissible, as is apparent from paragraph 26 above, the amount claimed by Tech-Fab Europe to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 15 763.54. 38      As regards, in the first place, the subject matter and nature of the dispute at issue, it should be stated that the matter was brought before the Court in appeal proceedings, which, by their very nature, are confined to points of law and do not, except in the case of distortion, concern the determination or assessment of the facts of the case. In the present case, the appeal of Hengshi and Jushi comprised three grounds, the first two alleging infringement of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 2(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21). The third ground of appeal criticised the decision of the General Court that the Commission had not imposed anti-dumping duties which exceed the dumping margin and, consequently, had not infringed Article 9(4) of Regulation 2016/1036. 39      As regards, in the second place, the significance of the dispute at issue from the point of view of EU law and the difficulties posed by the issues considered in the appeal proceedings, it should be noted that that dispute concerns complex economic issues. However, the degree of legal difficulty of the points of law raised by the present case cannot be considered exceptional. 40      As regards, in the third place, the economic interest which the dispute at issue had for the parties, it should be noted that the economic interest of Tech-Fab Europe and the EU producers represented by Tech-Fab Europe was very significant, given that those producers would probably have ceased their activities in the very short term if the anti-dumping measures had not been maintained. 41      As regards, in the fourth place, the amount of work required by the appeal proceedings, it is apparent from the application for taxation of costs that those proceedings required 34.5 hours of work on the part of Tech-Fab Europe’s advisers, 20 hours of which were invoiced by a partner at an hourly rate of EUR 390 and 7 hours by a senior partner at an hourly rate of EUR 590. Those hours were spent on the analysis of the action, on the one hand, and the preparation of a response, on the other. 42      In that connection, it should be borne in mind that while, in principle, the remuneration of only one agent, adviser or lawyer is recoverable, it is possible that, depending on the individual circumstances and most importantly, the complexity of each case, the fees of a number of lawyers may be considered ‘necessary expenses’ under Article 144(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (order of 21 February 2022, OZ v EIB, C‑558/17 P‑DEP, EU:C:2022:140, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited). 43      It follows that, when fixing the amount of the recoverable costs, the Court must take account of the total number of hours of work which may appear to be objectively necessary for the purpose of the proceedings, irrespective of the number of lawyers amongst whom that work was shared (order of 21 February 2022, OZ v EIB, C‑558/17 P-DEP, EU:C:2022:140, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited). 44      Furthermore, lawyers who claim to be highly qualified and very experienced in anti-dumping law and whose services are invoiced at an hourly rate from EUR 390 to EUR 590 are presumed to handle the cases entrusted to them, including those involving some complexity, efficiently and speedily (see, to that effect, order of 10 April 2019, Giant (China) v EBMA, C‑61/16 P‑DEP, EU:C:2019:298, paragraph 31). 45      In the present case, it is clear that the lawyers instructed by Tech-Fab Europe had already acquired in-depth knowledge of the case at issue during both the administrative proceedings before the Commission and the proceedings before the General Court, as they had already represented that company in both sets of proceedings, which should not only have facilitated their work, but also reduced the time necessary for the examination of the appeal and the drafting of the response. 46      It follows that the 34.5 hours of work which were spent by the lawyers instructed by Tech-Fab Europe in the appeal and the related administrative expenses do not appear in their entirety to have been ‘necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings’, within the meaning of Article 144(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. 47      As regards, in the fifth place, the request by Hengshi and Jushi that Tech-Fab Europe should bear the costs which they incurred in the present taxation of costs proceedings, which amounts to deducting an amount of EUR 1 200 from the costs recoverable by Tech-Fab Europe, it should be noted that, as is apparent from paragraph 34 of the present order, the Court, in fixing the recoverable costs, takes account of all the circumstances of the case up to the making of the order on taxation of costs. Therefore, there is no need to rule separately on the expenses incurred for the purpose of the present proceedings. Consequently, that request cannot be granted (see, by analogy, order of 20 January 2021, Council v Gul Ahmed Textile Mills, C‑100/17 P‑DEP, EU:C:2021:41, paragraph 44). 48      In the light of all the considerations set out in paragraphs 38 to 47 above, it is appropriate, in the present case, to fix the amount of the lawyers’ fees which were objectively necessary to ensure the defence of Tech-Fab Europe’s interests in the appeal proceedings in the amount of EUR 9 000. 49      Lastly, Tech-Fab Europe’s request concerning the payment by Hengshi and Jushi of default interest on that amount must be granted. 50      With regard to the applicable rate of interest, that must be calculated on the basis of the rate applied by the ECB to its main refinancing operations in force on the first day of the month in which payment is due, increased by three and a half percentage points (order of 20 January 2021, Council v Gul Ahmed Textile Mills, C‑100/17 P‑DEP, EU:C:2021:41, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited). 51      In so far as, pursuant to Article 91(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the order made by the Court is to be binding from the date of its service, default interest will begin to run from the date of service of the present order. 52      In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the costs recoverable by Tech-Fab Europe from Hengshi and Jushi, relating to Case C‑261/23 P, may be assessed on an equitable basis at a total amount of EUR 9 000, together with default interest from the date of service of the present order until the date of payment of the total amount owed, at a rate equal to that applied by the ECB to its main refinancing operations in force on the first calendar day of the month in which payment is due, increased by three and a half percentage points. On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby orders: 1.      The application for taxation of costs, in so far as it concerns the costs incurred by Tech-Fab Europe eV in Case T‑301/20, is inadmissible. 2.      The total amount of the costs that Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAEandJushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE must reimburse to Tech-Fab Europe eV in Case C‑261/23 P is fixed in the amount of EUR 9 000, together with default interest from the date of service of the present order until the date of payment of the total amount owed, at a rate equal to that applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations in force on the first calendar day of the month in which payment is due, increased by three and a half percentage points. Luxembourg, 29 August 2025. A. Calot Escobar   D. Gratsias Registrar   President of the Chamber *      Language of the case: English.