2026-05-26 - CoA - Xingi Technology et al. v. Avient Protective Materials - UPC-COA-0000076/2026
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-COA-0000076/2026
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd., Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd. v. Avient Protective Materials B.V
Kernaussage: The Court of Appeal partially granted suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP against an order of The Hague Local Division (Rule 190 RoP) requiring the appellants to produce ≥30 kg each of two UD ballistic-fabric types and English versions of a company video within two weeks.
2026-05-26 - CoA - Xingi Technology et al.
v.
Avient Protective Materials - UPC-COA-0000076/2026
notable
The Court of Appeal partially granted suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP against an order of The Hague Local Division (Rule 190 RoP) requiring the appellants to produce ≥30 kg each of two UD ballistic-fabric types and English versions of a company video within two weeks. It restated that suspensive effect is exceptional under Art. 74(1) UPCA, especially for procedural orders, and is justified in two categories: where enforcement would render the appeal devoid of purpose or largely ineffective because its consequences are not effectively reversible, or where the impugned order is manifestly wrong (including an evident breach of fundamental procedural rights liable to affect the outcome). The Court rejected the alleged breaches of the right to be heard — a fact arising after the Rule 190 application and not relied upon by the judge-rapporteur gives no hearing violation, and under Rule 190(4)(a)/(3) RoP the adversarial process encompasses the modalities of production, including the place of deposit — and rejected the claimed manifest errors (recognising market availability while finding that accurate testing required quantities exceeding open-market supply is not manifestly wrong, and specifying the conditions, form, time and place of production is not ultra petita). However, on a summary assessment it accepted, on the basis of a credible witness statement, that the exported materials are subject to Chinese export controls whose authorisation procedure (1-2 months) is incompatible with the two-week deadline, and that non-compliance would expose the appellants to non-reversible sanctions (fines, criminal detention). Enforcement would therefore render the appeal largely ineffective and cause irreparable harm; foreseeability of the order did not oblige the appellants to initiate the export procedures pre-emptively. Balancing the interests, the Court extended the compliance deadline to 15 July 2026 instead of fully staying the order.