BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L., UPC CFI LD The Hague, 13 August 2026, Case no. UPC-CFI-1048/2025
This short decision contains an important practice point: if you intend to apply for a reimbursement of court fees when withdrawing an action, you should do so at the same time as applying to withdraw the action, or at least before the proceedings are formally closed.
In this case the CFI had confirmed the withdrawal of an infringement action by way of a panel decision dated 16 January 2026 made pursuant to RoP R.265. The parties had informed the Court that no decision on costs was needed, a fact that was noted in the Court’s order.
On 10 March 2026, the claimant’s representative filed a request for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees pursuant to R.370.9(b). As the court file had been closed, this request only some time later came to the attention of the court. The sub-registry of the LD emailed the representative raising doubts as to whether it was procedurally possible to file a reimbursement request in respect of a file that had been closed. Furthermore, the present request did not appear consistent with the previous submission that no decision on costs was needed. The representative responded to say that the request was maintained, noting that R.370.11 did not stipulate a time limit.
The Court held that the application for reimbursement of the court fees was inadmissible and further that, even if it had been admissible, it was dismissed. As the parties had submitted that no decision on costs was needed, the value of the proceedings had not been determined. The case was then closed on 16 January 2026. It was not then possible to file further submissions or applications in such a case without first applying for the case to be re-opened. On that basis alone, the present request ought to be dismissed or disregarded as inadmissible. Even were the request admissible from a procedural point of view, the claimant had forfeited its right to request reimbursement when the parties informed the Court that no decision on costs was needed. Court fees were part of the costs. Furthermore, the delay in filing the request, of almost two months from the closure of proceedings, was unreasonable. Although R.370.11 does not expressly provide a time limit, considerations of proportionality, flexibility, fairness and equity require such a request to be made within a reasonable period and as soon as practicable after the final decision.
However, leave to appeal was granted, so it will be interesting to see if the Court of Appeal endorses this approach.
A copy of the decision can be found here.
