2026-07-02 - CoA - Anonymisiert (vertr. Michal PRZYLUSKI) v. Amycel - UPC-COA-0000935/2025

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: In appeal proceedings against a Hague LD default infringement decision, the Court of Appeal granted the respondent AMYCEL's application for security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP, but reduced the amount from EUR 56,000 to EUR 28,000. The Court reaffirmed that Art. 69(4) UPCA permits an order for security only against the party that initiated the relevant proceedings (the 'applicant'), never in that party's favour — so at first instance an infringement (or revocation) claimant cannot obtain security, but in appeal the appellant is the initiating 'applicant', meaning the respondent (here the first-instance claimant) may seek security regardless of the parties' first-instance roles. On the merits, security may be ordered where the circumstances give rise to a legitimate and real concern about the recoverability or enforceability of a future costs order; proof of insolvency, of impossibility of recovery, or of prior failed enforcement is not required. Here the appellant's repeated unsubstantiated assertions of financial hardship, failure to provide financial information despite the Court's requests, and continued non-payment of previous UPC awards together established such a concern, which the appellant failed to dispel. On quantum, the Court held the recoverable-costs ceiling is a maximum rather than an amount automatically awarded and, given the legal/procedural nature of the appeal, set proportionate security at 50% of the ceiling.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Website

Aktenzeichen: UPC-COA-0000935/2025