2026-06-01 - CoA - La Siddhi Consultancy v. Athena Pharmaceutiques et al. - UPC-COA-0000048/2026

ENGLISH: The qualification of a party as an SME or the submission of a declaration purporting to establish a party’s SME status pursuant to R. 370.8 RoP is not, in itself, sufficient to dispense with the obligation for said party to provide a security for costs in accordance with R. 158 RoP, if the requirements for the application of that rule are met. The amount of the security for costs should be set starting from the ceiling of Annex A (“scale of ceilings for recoverable costs”) to the Decision of the Administrative Committee of 24 April 2023, weighed according to all the relevant circumstances of the case presented by the parties. Where appropriate, the Court may take the SME status of a party into account to determine the amount of the security for costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a Central Division Milan order requiring a revocation claimant to provide EUR 75,000 security for costs. In a headnoted ruling it held that a party's SME status — or a declaration of SME status filed under R. 370.8 RoP to obtain reduced court fees — does not, in itself, exempt that party from the obligation to provide security under R. 158 RoP where the rule's requirements are met, because Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP contain no SME exception and pursue objectives distinct from R. 370.8 RoP. The Court also confirmed the methodology for setting the amount: security is calculated starting from the Annex A ceiling of recoverable costs, weighted by all relevant circumstances, with SME status capable of being considered where appropriate. It reaffirmed the burden-shifting framework (the applicant must credibly substantiate the recoverability concern, after which the claimant must substantiate its sufficient means) and the limited standard of appellate review of first-instance discretion under R. 158.1 RoP.