Rematec v. Europe Forestry, Order of the Court of Appeal of the UPC, 3 July 2026, Case Nos. UPC_CoA_302/2025; UPC_CoA_305/2025
Introduction
The UPC Court of Appeal has re-affirmed that applications for taxation of costs must be submitted to the Court of First Instance and it does not have jurisdiction to decide costs. This applies even if part of the application concerns the costs of appeal proceedings. The CoA rejected an internal referral of the application as there were no exceptional circumstances which would justify this, and the applicant was required to re-submit the application to the Court of First Instance.
Background
The application arose out of infringement proceedings brought by Rematec. On 17 February 2026, the Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance decision of the Mannheim Local Division, upholding the infringement claim and dismissing Europe Forestry’s counterclaim for revocation.
On 17 March 2026 (within the 1-month deadline), Rematec filed an application with the Court of Appeal for taxation of costs. That day, it was requested to remedy deficiencies by submitting the application to the Court of First Instance – the Mannheim Local Division – and withdrawing the application from the Court of Appeal. Instead, Rematec amended its application by letter of 18 March 2026, asking for the application for costs to be forwarded to the Mannheim Local Division. Separately, it also resubmitted the application to the Mannheim Local Division. On 30 March 2026, the Judge-Rapporteur of the Court of Appeal dismissed the request for the internal referral, with the instruction that the date of filing with the Court of Appeal could be deemed the date of filing with the Court of First Instance.
On 14 April 2026, Rematec lodged an application for review of the Judge-Rapporteur’s order under R. 333 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), which provides for review of case management orders.
Reasoning
On 3 July 2026, the Court of Appeal admitted the application for review, but rejected it as unfounded.
Contrary to Europe Forestry’s submissions, the rejection of Rematec’s application for review was a procedural measure, rather than the termination of any proceedings, and was therefore eligible for review under R. 333 RoP.
However, like most other UPC proceedings, the taxation of costs is the subject of separate proceedings (R. 150 RoP), and must start in a court of first instance. As established in Hanshow v VusionGroup (Order of 29 July 2024), an application for costs must be submitted to the Court of First Instance. See the previous EPLAW post here UPC – Hanshow v. VusionGroup – Court fees / Appeal for a broader summary of this case.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that this applies even if part of the costs are attributable to appeal proceedings on the merits. There is no special procedure for costs following a decision of the Court of Appeal and therefore R. 150 applies in the same manner to the costs of appeal.
The application for an internal referral was dismissed, upholding the Judge-Rapporteur’s Order of 30 March that there were no exceptional circumstances which would justify such a referral. The Court of Appeal also rejected submissions by Rematec that R. 151 RoP – dealing with the commencement of costs proceedings – conflicted with the UPCA or EU law, finding that there is no basis for referring a question for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU.
Comment
This Order reaffirms the Court of Appeal’s earlier order in Hanshow v VusionGroup that it lacks jurisdiction to determine costs. Following an appeal decision on the merits, practitioners should therefore file an application for costs directly to the Court of First Instance to avoid duplication and the risk of disputes over delay.
The Order (in German) can be found here.
