La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v. Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS and Substipharm, UPC Court of Appeal, 1 June 2026, Case no. UPC_CoA_48/2026
Security for costs / SME
La Siddhi brought a revocation action before the Central Division in Milan. At Athena’s request, the Judge-Rapporteur ordered security for costs in the amount of €75,000, granting leave to appeal. La Siddhi appealed on the following grounds: that Athena had failed to prove that a costs order would be difficult to enforce; that the financial information Athena submitted, while uncontested, did not amount to sufficient evidence, and that this was moreover unfair, since La Siddhi had not been given the opportunity to adduce further evidence; that the fact that the UK is party to neither the EU nor the Lugano Convention gave no cause for concern that a costs order could not be enforced; and that the Judge-Rapporteur had failed to take its status as an SME (small- and medium-sized enterprise) into account.
The Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal refers to the applicable legal framework (Art. 69(4) UPCA) and to its own case law (Court of Appeal, Order of 20 June 2025, AorticLab v. Emboline, UPC_CoA_393/2025, and Court of Appeal, Order of 18 February 2026, UPC_CoA_889/2025). In the present case, Athena provided sufficiently detailed, publicly available information, and it was then for the appellant to furnish counter-evidence, which it did not do. The fact that La Siddhi is a micro enterprise (fewer than 10 employees and a turnover below €2 million) is insufficient to set aside R. 158 RoP, as neither R. 158 RoP nor Art. 69(4) UPCA draws a distinction for SMEs, unlike certain other provisions. Finally, the fact that the appellant is established in the UK played no role in the first-instance decision of the Local Division.
The Order can be read here.
