LD Munich, March 19, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_425/2024

1. Key takeaways

Background of the case

The Applicants request a security for costs under R.158 RoP by arguing that Respondent has its registered office in the People's Republic of China so that it is alleged that it was not sufficiently certain that a cost decision would be accepted and could be enforced in China.

The Respondent countered that Applicants did not provide any substantive arguments for their speculative allegation that "the enforcement of a cost decision against the Claimant in China appears to be nearly impossible or at least highly difficult". The mere fact that Respondent have its registered office in a non-EU/non-EEA country cannot be relevant for the decision on an order for security of costs so that this would be a form of a priori discrimination, based precisely on the nationality of Respondent's registered office/domicile, which is not provided for in any source of law.