2026-07-17 - CoA - Siemens Healthcare v. Hologic - UPC-COA-0000094/2026
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-COA-0000094/2026
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Siemens Healthcare SAS, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V. v. Hologic, Inc.
Kernaussage: The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of an application for suspensive effect and clarified two consequences of such a withdrawal.
2026-07-17 - CoA - Siemens Healthcare
v.
Hologic - UPC-COA-0000094/2026
notable
The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of an application for suspensive effect and clarified two consequences of such a withdrawal. First, R. 265.1 RoP applies mutatis mutandis to the withdrawal of an application for suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP, but the cost-decision limb of R. 265 does not, because withdrawing an ancillary application does not terminate the underlying proceedings [12]. Second, R. 370.9(b) RoP likewise applies mutatis mutandis and caps reimbursement at 50% of the court fees; the reasons for a withdrawal — including that the application was filed by accident — are irrelevant to reimbursement, which depends only on the fact and timing of the withdrawal [16]. The Court held there is no legal basis for a full refund: R. 370.9(e) RoP operates only to deny or decrease reimbursement, so it cannot be applied analogously to increase it, and the Rules contain no unintended gap for applications filed in error [16]-[17]. The panel followed its own approach in Alpinestars v Dainese on the withdrawal of a request for discretionary review.