UPC-COA-0000028/2026

As a general rule, revocation under Article 75(1) UPCA and Rule 242.1 RoP of an order granting an injunction has retroactive effect, so the revoked order must be regarded as never having had any legal effect and cannot provide the legal basis for a subsequent penalty-payment decision, including one concerning alleged breaches before revocation.

For valuing proceedings under Rule 370.6 RoP, the relevant interest is that of the party that initiated the action before the Court of First Instance at the time of filing, and on a defendant’s appeal it remains the claimant’s interest in having the decision upheld rather than the defendant’s interest in having it set aside.

Under Rule 370.6 RoP, the amount of penalties payable to the Court does not represent the claimant’s interest in enforcement proceedings; the relevant interest is the claimant’s interest in proper fulfilment of the obligations that the penalties serve to incentivize.

Where the underlying decision has been retroactively revoked and must be regarded as never having had any legal effect, there is no legal basis to assess whether the defendant unnecessarily contributed to enforcement costs or was late or incomplete in complying with that decision.

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