LD Hamburg, April 2, 2025, Order On Procedural Security, UPC_CFI_429/2024

1. Key takeaways

The mere allegation that enforcement of foreign judgments at Claimant's seat in China has proven to be enormously difficult is not sufficient reason to order a procedural security pursuant to R. 158 RoP.

The fact that the Claimant has its registered office in a non-EU/non-EEA country, especially in the People's Republic of China, cannot be relevant for the decision on an order for security. This would be a form of a priori discrimination, based precisely on the nationality of Claimant's registered office/domicile, which is not provided for in any source of law (LD Munich CFI_514/2023). Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158(1) RoP do not differentiate between parties domiciled within or outside the EU. Therefore, the seat of a party cannot be considered to be the sole basis for an order to provide security for costs (different view, LD Vienna, UPC_CFI_33/2024, ORD_37208/2024).