AIM Sport Development v TGI Sport Suomi (CoA, 8 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 8 July 2026, the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal held that the court fees paid by AIM Sport Development AG for its appeal against the Helsinki Local Division’s order of 29 April 2026 (ACT_551054/2023, EP 3 295 663) were both necessary and sufficient. According to AIM, the appeal concerned only the costs of provisional measures proceedings that had become devoid of purpose. The point is useful: such an appeal remains an appeal against a final decision, subject to both the fixed fee and the value-based fee.

Question

Does an appeal limited to costs, against an order disposing of an application for provisional measures that had become devoid of purpose, escape the fees under Tables IV and V, as AIM argued after paying EUR 20,400 as a precaution (paragraphs 5 and 6)?

Decision

No. The Registry’s validation of the formal requirements (Rules 225, 226 and 299) does not bind the Court, which may revisit the payment of fees at any stage (paragraph 7). Rule 360 applies to applications for provisional measures and, under Rule 363.2, a decision of the Court of First Instance under Rules 360 to 362 is a final decision within the meaning of Rule 220.1(a). The appeal therefore attracts the fixed fee of EUR 14,600 under Table IV and the value-based fee under Table V, calculated on the EUR 800,000 ceiling of costs ordered against AIM (paragraph 8). AIM was also invited to explain, by 13 July 2026, why Respondent 6, not named in the impugned order, is involved in the appeal (paragraph 9).

Key points for practice

• An appeal against an order closing provisional measures proceedings falls under Rule 220.1(a), even where the appellant presents it as limited to costs. The value-based fee is then calculated on the amount of costs at stake (paragraph 8).
• Registry validation does not settle court fee issues, which the Court may raise later (paragraph 7).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.1, 225, 226, 299, 333.1, 360, 361, 362 and 363.2

Table of court fees

Tables IV and V

Case law cited

Ballinno v Kinexon, Court of Appeal, 26 June 2025

Related decisions

• AIM Sport Development AG v TGI Sport Suomi Oy, 16 July 2026, later order deleting Respondent 6 from the statement of appeal.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.