2025-12-05 - LD Copenhagen - Hybridgenerator v. Hgsystem et al. - UPC_CFI_492/2024

ENGLISH: 1. The Court partially upheld the request for payment of penalty payments due to the defendant's delayed disclosure of requested information following an order to preserve evidence. 2. The Court had ordered the defendant to pay penalty payments of EUR 5,000 per day until the defendant provided specific information regarding access codes to, among other things, the financial system, e-mail systems and a seized computer. 3. The court found that the defendant had only complied fully with the court's order after a delay of 36 days. The defendants had provided the requested login information for the financial system and email accounts with a delay of 18 days, after which it took a further 18 days before the defendants provided login information for a seized computer. 4. Rekvisiti had not presented any substantiated factual circumstances that reasonably prevented them from providing the information in question in a timely manner and thus complying with the Court's decision in this regard. 5. As fines not only serve a coercive function but also have a punitive character, the imposition of a fine was justified even though the defendant had in the meantime fulfilled its obligation to provide the information required by the Court. 6. The Court found that the defendant's breach of the terms of the Court's order to preserve evidence had to be regarded as serious, as it meant that the preservation of evidence could not be fully implemented and that the purpose of the preservation of evidence was partially defeated. 7. Taking into account reasons of fairness and proportionality, the amount of the fine was set within the prescribed limit of EUR 5,000, with the defendants being jointly ordered to pay apenalty payment of EUR 2,500 per day for the first 18-day period and a penalty payment of EUR 1 250 per day for the subsequent 18-day period, resulting in a total fine of EUR 67,500. DANISH: 1. Anmodning om betaling af tvangsbøder blev af Domstolen taget delvist til følge grundet rekvistis forsinkede udlevering af krævede oplysninger i forlængelse af en kendelse om bevissikring. 2.Domstolen havde ved kendelse bestemt, at rekvisiti skulle betale tvangsbøder på 5.000 Euro pr. dag, indtil rekvisiti fremkom med nærmere bestemte oplysninger vedrørende adgangskoder til bl.a. økonomisystem, e-mailsystemer og en beslaglagt computer. 3.Domstolen lagde til grund, at rekvisiti først med en forsinkelse på 36 dage fuldt ud opfyldte Domstolens kendelse. Rekvisiti havde med 18 dages forsinkelse udleveret de krævede loginoplysninger vedrørende økonomisystem og mailkonti, hvorefter der gik yderligere 18 dage, inden rekvisiti udleverede login oplysninger vedrørende en beslaglagt computer. 4.Rekvisiti havde ikke fremlagt underbyggede faktiske omstændigheder, der med rimelighedforhindrede dem i rettidigt at fremlægge de pågældende oplysninger og dermed efterkomme Domstolens afgørelse herom. 5. Da bøder ikke blot tjener en tvangsmæssig funktion, men også har en straffende karakter, var bødepålæggelse berettiget, selv om rekvisiti i mellemtiden havde opfyldt forpligtelsen til at fremkomme med oplysninger som pålagt af Domstolen. 6.Domstolen fandt, at rekvistis overtrædelse af vilkårene i Domstolens kendelse om bevissikring måtte anses for at være alvorlig, idet overtrædelsen medførte, at bevissikringen ikke kunne gennemføres fuldt ud, og at formålet med bevissikringen delvist blev forspildt. 7.Bødebeløbet blev under hensyn til rimelighed- og proportionalitetsgrunde inden for den fastsatte ramme på 5.000 Euro fastsat således, at der blev pålagt rekvisitii i forening en tvangsbøde på 2.500 Euro pr. dag vedrørende den første 18 dages periode og en tvangsbøde på 1.250 Euro pr. dag for den efterfølgende 18 dages periode, hvilket medførte en samlet bøde på 67.500 Euro.

Penalty payments partially upheld for late compliance with evidence preservation order. The Copenhagen LD found 36-day delay in providing access codes (financial system, email, seized computer). EUR 5,000/day penalty partially reduced. Penalties serve both coercive and punitive functions — court considered proportionality. Defendant failed to present substantiated circumstances preventing timely compliance.