Article 71d

This Regulation shall apply to the recognition and enforcement of:
(a) judgments given by a common court which are to be recognised and enforced in a Member State not party to the instrument establishing the common court; and
(b) judgments given by the courts of a Member State not party to the instrument establishing the common court which are to be recognised and enforced in a Member State party to that instrument.
However, where recognition and enforcement of a judgment given by a common court is sought in a Member State party to the instrument establishing the common court, any rules of that instrument on recognition and enforcement shall apply instead of the rules of this Regulation.

UPC Case Law:

IPPT20240213, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Plant-e v Arkyne
Defendant’s request for security for costs (“cautio iudicatum solvi”) rejected (Article 69(4) UPCA; Rule 158 RoP, Article 24 UPCA). Protecting the rights of the defendant should be balanced against the right of the claimant to enforce its patent rights. The main rationale for the cautio is to secure the enforceability of a potential cost order. If such order is directly enforceable after it is granted, it can serve as grounds not to allow a cautio at the start of or during the proceedings. UPC decisions and orders are directly enforceable in the Netherlands in accordance with Art. 82 UPCA, Art. 71d Brussels and R. 354.1 RoP. A cautio in this case is hence not justified because of the risk that a possible cost order in favour of Bioo will not be directly enforceable. This contrasts with the situation decided by the CD Munich [IPPT20231030]  – [....] – on which Bioo relies. In that case the relevant claimant was domiciled outside the EU and no treaty regarding the execution of judgments was in place.