A group of individuals filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court, seeking to recognize provisions of Article 112 of the Administrative Procedure Code as non-complying to the Constitution. The said article stipulates the right to recover attorneys' fees. The applicants claimed that the third parties engaged in the case shall not have the right to recover attorneys' fees.
On January 21, 2019 the Constitutional Court ruled, that the article in question complies with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court pointed out, that the third parties in an administrative case have the right to recover the incurred attorneys' fees, however, while deciding this issue the court shall establish the following:
- the third party involved factually has borne the fees;
- the third party's conduct during proceedings influenced the judgement;
- incurred attorneys' fees were necessary and are recovered in reasonable frameworks;
- the third party's participation in the case is a due and proper protection of his rights and interests;
- the judgement in the case entails legal consequences for the third party;
- attorneys' fees incurred by the third party do not only aim to prevent a plaintiff from protection of his rights and legitimate interests, or rights and legitimate interests of the others.
- Obviously, if any of the circumstances mentioned above are not established, the court may reject a third party's claim to recover attorneys' fees, or seriously reduce the amount to be awarded.
The Constitutional Court also stated, that the right to recover attorneys' fees does not depend on, whether an interested person or a third party are engaged in the case at their own discretion, or under a motion of other participants, or by a court discretion.
The same approach to an issue of recovering attorneys' fees is applied in economic courts. The court also stated, that if the recovery of legal costs is not stipulated by law, a party is entitled to claim damages incurred during proceedings.
Specialists of «A.Zalesov & Partners» Patent & Law Firm comment, that this approach of the Constitutional Court is also to be observed in appealing Rospatent decisions before the IP Court, where a party, in whose favor Rospatent took a decision in question, is not a co-defendant, but a third party. To learn more about the Ruling please follow the link.