2026-02-04 - CoA - EOFLOW v. Insulet - UPC-COA-0000930/2025

ENGLISH: Orders imposing a penalty payment (Art. 82(4) UPCA, R. 354.4 RoP) are not orders as specified in Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA or R. 220.1(c) RoP. The last sentence of R. 354.4 RoP reads: "(...) the Court may make an appropriate order which may be subject to an appeal pursuant to Rule 220.2." This means that an appeal against those orders is only admissible if leave to appeal is granted by the Court of First Instance who issued the order, or the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal after discretionary review according to R. 220.4 RoP.

The CoA held that penalty orders under Art. 82(4) UPCA / R. 354.4 RoP are not orders under Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA that can be appealed as of right. R. 354.4 RoP's reference to 'an appeal pursuant to Rule 220.2' means leave to appeal is required, either from the CFI or through CoA discretionary review under R. 220.4 RoP. EOFlow's appeal was dismissed because the Milan CD did not grant leave regarding the penalty (only regarding confidentiality), and EOFlow did not request leave. The court rejected arguments that the leave requirement violates access to justice under the Charter, finding the requirement clearly provided by law in Art. 73(2) UPCA and R. 354.4 RoP.