2025-07-31 - CD Milan - Novartis v. Zentiva - UPC_CFI_382/2025

1. Art. 69 UPCA, by requiring legal costs to be proportionate and reasonable (see also Rule 152.1 RoP), establishes a legal standard that enables the judge-rapporteur to issue a decision on legal costs. One might ask whether this provision is compliant with Art. 8 and 78 UPCA, which provide for a decision to be issued in principle by a panel. It can be assumed that, once a decision on the merits has been taken, the requirements of proceedings efficiency and proportionality prevail (the decision on costs or damages are usually less complex than that on the merits and can therefore be taken without involving a panel), as stated in the preamble (7) to the RoP ‘Decisions on costs and/or damages may take place at the same time or as soon as practicable thereafter. Case management shall be organised in accordance with these objectives’. 2. Judicial assessment of legal costs may be conducted by the judge-rapporteur either through a prima facie assessment of the legal costs, or through a more in-depth investigation of the cost items for which reimbursement is requested, depending on the facts put forward by the applicant. Rule 156.1 applies when the judge-rapporteur wishes to scrutinise in-depth the proportionality and reasonableness for which compensation is requested (Rule 151(d)) or in the case of a lack of substantiation of the costs requested. Once the judge rapporteur issues a request for cost substantiation under Rule 156.1 (RoP), the costs of the proceedings can no longer be assessed equitably. Instead, they are governed by the principle that the burden of proof lies with the party that makes the allegation. 3. Information cannot be withheld from the court on the grounds of confidentiality. The confidentiality procedure outlined in Rule 262A applies to third parties and does not apply to the parties to the proceedings or the Court. This procedure is specifically designed to allow a party to introduce confidential information into the proceedings, safe in the knowledge that it will not be disclosed to third parties.

The Milan Central Division - represented by the JR - issued a decision on cost reimbursement, ordering the Defendants to pay a compensation related to the application to intervene; the remainder of the costs of these proceedings were to be shared by the parties, each bearing their respective costs. The Court went into details regarding the JR's competence for a cost decision as well as the burden of proof in cost proceedings. Finally the Court clarified that there would be no confidentiality against the court.