UPC-COA-0000028/2026

Where a Court of First Instance order is revoked under Article 75(1) UPCA and Rule 242.1 RoP because a final Court of Appeal judgment establishes that it should not have been made, the revocation generally has retroactive effect and the order is regarded as never having had any legal effect.

Revocation of an order subject to a recurring penalty removes the legal basis for a subsequent decision ordering payment of that penalty, including for alleged breaches before revocation, and the same consequence applies when a Court of Appeal revokes a merits decision containing orders subject to recurring penalty payments.

Under Rule 370.6 RoP, the value of proceedings reflects the objective interest pursued by the party that initiated the Court of First Instance action at the time of filing; on a defendant’s appeal, the claimant’s interest in having the decision upheld remains determinative rather than the defendant’s interest in setting it aside.

For valuing enforcement proceedings under Rule 370.6 RoP, forfeited penalties payable to the Court and containing coercive and punitive elements do not represent the claimant’s interest; the relevant measure is the claimant’s interest in proper fulfilment of the obligations that the penalties incentivize.

Enforcing a decision while appeal proceedings are pending is undertaken at the risk of the party enforcing it.

Where the underlying decision is retroactively regarded as never having had legal effect, there is no legal basis in the resulting enforcement proceedings to assess whether the defendant unnecessarily contributed to enforcement costs through allegedly late or incomplete compliance.