UPC CoA, 26 June 2025: Suspensive effect granted for appeal from order to provide security for costs by defendant in infringement action
04-09-2025 Print this page
Suspensive effect granted for appeal from order to provide security by defendant in infringement action because of manifest error (R. 223 RoP, Article 69(4) UPCA).
After the impugned order was issued, in other proceedings, the Court of Appeal has ruled that Art.69(4) UPCA does not provide a legal basis for an order to provide a security for costs at the request of a claimant in an infringement action and that a security for costs may also not be requested by such claimant in response to a counterclaim lodged by the defendant in the infringement action (UPC_CoA_393/2025, APL_20694/2025 AorticLab vs. Emboline).
As it is clear from the reasons of the AorticLab vs. Emboline order, the principles apply regardless of the circumstances of the individual case.
Outstanding issue regarding competence of law firm (Article 48 UPCA, R. 285 RoP) to file the appeal and the application for suspensive effect regarding the Easee companies in view of the insolvency of both entities having formally declared insolvent at the time when these motions were filed.
