A guide to the UPC and the UP - Flipbook - Page 410
Appeals/applications
Fee
Appeal pursuant to r.220(2) 91 for which leave has
been granted by the Court of First Instance 92 or
which has been allowed by the Court of Appeal 93
€1,500
Request for discretionary review to the
Court of Appeal 94. The fee does not arise
if the appeal is allowed.
€350
Appeal against cost decision pursuant to r.221(4) 95 €3,000
Application for leave to appeal against cost
decisions. 96 The fee does not arise if the
appeal is allowed.
€1,500
Application for re-establishment of rights 97
€350
Application to review a case management order 98
€300
Application to set aside decision by default 99
€1,000
Recovery of Costs
20-38 Art.69(1) UPCA sets out the general rule that all:
“Reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful
party 100 shall, as a general rule, be borne by the unsuccessful party unless equity requires
otherwise, up to a ceiling set in accordance with the [RoP].”
20-39 The wording of art.69(1) UPCA stems from art.14 Enforcement Directive. The Administrative
Committee issued the scale of recoverable cost [ceilings] (“the Scale of Recoverable Costs”)
on 24 April 2023. The table setting out the scale of ceilings is reproduced at table 20-6.
20-40 Rules regarding the reimbursement of lawyers’ fees vary widely between Member States.
Therefore, the decision of the Administrative Committee on Court fees and recoverable costs
forms a politically difficult, but nevertheless straightforward, compromise. For practitioners who
are unfamiliar with a procedure in which the value of the action is used to apportion the costs,
there are two important observations to be made.
20-41 Firstly, the UPCA imposes a ceiling for the legal costs and other expenses that the successful
party can recover from the unsuccessful party. Despite the concept being well established,
with several national legislations providing for ceilings in the reimbursement of costs by the
unsuccessful party, the question of whether art.14 Enforcement Directive allows ceilings for
legal costs as a matter of principle was put before the CJEU via a request for a preliminary
ruling from a Belgian appeal court in United Video Properties v Telenet. 101 In line with the
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
r.228 RoP.
r.220(2) RoP
r.220(4).
r.221(4) RoP.
r.228 RoP.
rr.221 and 228 RoP.
r.320(2) RoP.
r.333(3) RoP.
r.356(2) RoP.
Although there is no definition, it must be assumed that the expression “successful party” indicates the party which
has really won, even though they might not have won all disputed points.
United Video Properties, Inc. v Telenet NV (C-57/15), ECLI:EU:C:2016:611. The following question was submitted to the
CJEU by the Antwerp Appeal Court : “Do the terms ‘reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses’ in
© Bird & Bird LLP | May 2023
A Guide to the UPC and the UP 400
