It is not possible to speak of a usual norm in the valuation of costs, since, despite the efforts of the General Council of the Judiciary, it has not been possible to unify all judges and magistrates in a common position, these being, in In each case, those who decide the origin of the appraisal presented that, we repeat, within the freedom of minute that a lawyer has, must adjust as much as possible to the recommendations of his College. The case of the Prosecutor is very simple, since they charge fees.

Complications arise, for example, in the case of cassation, where the Court itself sets the maximum costs in all the sentences

In any case, the criteria of the Bar Associations are indicative and do not bind judicial decisions. What they do have is the approval of most of them as fees adjusted to reality.

We must not lose sight of the Order of the TS of May 21, 2009 (LA LEY 104922/2009) (casación nº. 25/2007, rapporteur: FERNÁNDEZ MONTALVO) in which he succinctly explains the criteria that should govern the assessment of legal costs, which is, after all, what is being consulted in the case at hand. Thus, in its Second Legal Basis, the Order says the following:

«In relation to the challenge of the appraisal of costs for excessive with respect to the indicated fees, the Madrid Bar Association has informed that the fees questioned are excessive and considers it more in line with the Guiding Criteria for Professional Fees and the principles that inform them, to transfer to the party due in costs the more measured amount of 5,000 euros instead of the one initially claimed by it. The report issued by the Secretary of this Section considers that it is appropriate to reduce the bill to the amount of 1,000 euros. As can be seen from the proceedings, the professional fees in question refer to two writings, one opposing the admission of the appeal, under the provisions of article 90.3 of the Jurisdictional Law, and another informing of the Chamber determinedextreme. Well, for the purposes of quantifying the lawyer’s fees, we must point out that the Guiding Rules for Professional Fees to be taken into account are those approved in 2001 by the College of Lawyers of Madrid, given the dates of filing of the appeal and approval of said Rules, and it is precise to mean that in accordance with the Fifth General Provision of the repeated Rules, in general, to set the fees, the various concurrent factors in each case, such as the professional work carried out, the greater or lesser complexity of the matter, the time used, the consequences in the real and practical order, etc., being circumstances of greater relevance, but not unique, the amount of the matter and the results obtained in merit of the professional services rendered. It should also be noted that this Chamber has been repeatedly declaring that in the cases of imposition of costs, special moderation must be exercised when setting the fees of the Lawyers, without prejudice to the fact that they may receive from their own client the fees not passed on to the opposing party. The Eighth General Provision of the Rules to which we refer expressly indicates that the order of costs does not imply an inversion of the burden of payment of the Lawyer’s fees, which corresponds to the client himself, without the agreements between the Lawyer and the client linking the convicted person. in costs. To this we must add that such Rules are merely for guidance and are not binding on the courts, which are responsible for their determination in case of challenge as established in article 246.3 of the Civil Procedure Law of January 7, 2000, for which purpose the concurrent circumstances in the process in which they have been accrued must be addressed, such as the professional work performed, their greater or lesser complexity, the interest and the financial amount of the matter, working time, scope and effects on the development of the process, among others.”