- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-57/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — United Video Properties Inc. v Telenet NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 14 — Legal costs — Lawyers’ fees — Flat-rate reimbursement — Maximum amounts — Costs of a technical adviser — Reimbursement — Condition of fault on the part of the unsuccessful party)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CA0057
62015CA0057
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
26.9.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 350/5
(Case C-57/15) (<a id="ntc1-C_2016350EN.01000501-E0001" href="#ntr1-C_2016350EN.01000501-E0001"> (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)</a>
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 14 - Legal costs - Lawyers’ fees - Flat-rate reimbursement - Maximum amounts - Costs of a technical adviser - Reimbursement - Condition of fault on the part of the unsuccessful party))
(2016/C 350/05)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: United Video Properties Inc.
Defendant: Telenet NV
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by the successful party, which offers the courts responsible for making that order the possibility of taking into account features specific to the case before it, and provides for a flat-rate scheme for the reimbursement of costs for the assistance of a lawyer, subject to the condition that those rates ensure that the costs to be borne by the unsuccessful party are reasonable, which it is for the referring court to determine. However, Article 14 of that directive precludes national legislation providing flat-rates which, owing to the maximum amounts that it contains being too low, do not ensure that, at the very least, that a significant and appropriate part of the reasonable costs incurred by the successful party are borne by the unsuccessful party;
2.Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 must be interpreted as precluding national rules providing that reimbursement of the costs of a technical adviser are provided for only in the event of fault on the part of the unsuccessful party, given that those costs are directly and closely linked to a judicial action seeking to have such an intellectual property right upheld.
(<a id="ntr1-C_2016350EN.01000501-E0001" href="#ntc1-C_2016350EN.01000501-E0001">(<span class="super">1</span>)</a> OJ C 138, 27.4.2015).
* * *