C-20/63
ECLI:EU:C:1964:69
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61963CO0020
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF THE COURT (FIRST CHAMBER) 30 SEPTEMBER 1964
Jean Maudet
v Commission of the European Economic Community 2 Joined Cases 20 and 21/63
In Joined Cases 20 and 21/63
Jean Maudet , an official of the European Economic Community, repre
sented by Louis Rousseau, Advocate at the Conseil d'État and Cour de
Cassation, Paris, applicant, v
Commission of the European Economic Community , represented by its Legal Adviser, Louis de la Fontaine, acting as Agent,
defendant,
THE COURT (First Chamber)
composed of: A. Trabucchi (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, L. Delvaux and W. Strauß, Judges,
Advocate-General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte
makes the following
ORDER
Issues of fact and of law
Whereas on 19 March 1964 the Court chosen his address for service in Luxem gave judgment in Joined Cases 20 and bourg; 21/63 and ordered the defendant to Wnereas in its statement presented on
pay the cost ; 7 August 1964 the defendant made no
Whereas on 23 July 1964 the First objection to the recovery by Mr Arendt Chamber of the Court received a com of the fees for acceptance of service
plaint by the applicant against the incurred as a result of the obligation on refusal of the defendant to settle the the applicant to choose an address for schedule of fees presented by E. Arendt, service where the Court has its seat; at whose Chambers the applicant had Whereas, however, the defendant con-
1 — Language of the Case: French. 2 — Maudet v Commission of the EEC, (1964) E.C.R. 113.
ORDER OF 30.9.1964—JOINED CASES 20 AND 21/63
siders that the provision of assistance to 27 August 1964 the applicant claims
the client involving the payment of fees that the duties of the lawyer providing does not strictly come within the duties the address for service are not restricted
of the lawyer providing the address for to the mere transmission of procedural
service; and whereas, therefore, such documents; fees are not 'expenses in Whereas such lawyer must also ensure necessarily curred by the parties for the purpose of that the proper procedure is being fol lowed, he proceedings'
the recoverable under sub must party receive the con
paragraph (b) of Article 73 of the Rules cerned, give him necessary information of Procedure of the Court; and advice and explain recent relevant
Whereas the defendant requests the case-law;
Court to fix at 2500 Luxembourg francs Whereas such activities require re
the costs recoverable as fees for accept muneration ; and whereas the applicant
ance of service being the sum claimed by requests the Court to uphold the request Mr Arendt as 'office and correspondence for fees of6000 Luxembourg francs expense '; presented by Mr Arendt. Whereas in his statement presented on
Grounds
Whereas under subparagraph (b) of Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure of. the Court, the only recoverable fees for acceptance of service are those
necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proce dings;
Whereas services supplied to the applicant by the lawyer providing the address for service and which involve the payment of fees bear a resemblance to services supplied by the applicant's adviser or lawyer;
Whereas in this respect the above provision states that only the remuneration 1 due to an adviser or lawyer shall be recoverable ;
Whereas the only obligation on private parties under the second paragraph
of Article 17 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court ofJustice of the EEC is that in actions before the Court they shall be represented by a lawyer;
Whereas, therefore, within the meaning of subparagraph (b) of Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure, only the remuneration of the lawyer representing
a private party in an action before the Court may be regarded as necessary expenses of legal assistance;
Whereas, therefore, whilst a party to an action before the Court is free to in lawyer employ an adviser addition to the representing him before the
1 — Translator's Note: The French text of Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure refers to 'la rémuneration d'un agent,
conseil ou avocat'.
MAUDET v COMMISSION
Court, the additional expenses incurred as a result of so doing cannot be recoverable;
Whereas, therefore, expenses incurred in this case as a result of Mr Arendt's services are recoverable only in so far as the fees for acceptance of service
in the proper sense are concerned and any fees payable in respect of addi
tional services are not so recoverable,
On those grounds,
Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General;
Having regard to Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court ofJustice and Article 17 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Com unity;
THE COURT (First Chamber)
hereby orders:
The total sum recoverable in this case by way of fees for accept ance of service shall be fixed at 2500 Luxembourg francs.
Luxembourg, 30 September 1964.
A. Van Houtte L. Delvaux Registrar Judge For the President of the First Chamber