2024-05-02 - CoA - Progress Maschinen Automation v. Awm et al. - UPC_CoA_177/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CoA_177/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Application Order
- Parteien:
- Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v. AWM, Schnell
Kernaussage: An exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect may apply, for instance, if the enforcement of the order pending the appeal would render the appeal largely ineffective.
2024-05-02 - CoA - Progress Maschinen Automation
v.
Awm et al. - UPC_CoA_177/2024
An exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect may apply, for instance, if the enforcement of the order pending the appeal would render the appeal largely ineffective.
significant
Progress Maschinen had obtained Art. 60 UPCA preservation-of-evidence and inspection orders at the Milan LD on 25 September 2023; measures executed 17 October 2023. Milan LD's 8 April 2024 impugned order (UPC_CFI_286/2023 + 287/2023) declared Progress's disclosure application inadmissible, revoked the measures, ordered restitution of all evidence from 5 June 2024, awarded €10,000 legal fees to AWM/Schnell, and granted leave to appeal. Progress appealed (APL_20002/2024 UPC_CoA_177/2024) and filed a separate R.223 RoP application for suspensive effect.
The CoA (Blok, sole judge) GRANTS the suspensive-effect application. Headnote: an exception to the no-suspensive-effect principle may apply, for instance, if enforcement of the appealed order pending the appeal would render the appeal LARGELY INEFFECTIVE. Reasoning: Art. 74(1) UPCA says appeal has no suspensive effect unless the CoA decides otherwise on motivated request. Exception where enforcement would make appeal devoid of purpose (citing UPC_CoA_407/2023, 6 November 2023; UPC_CoA_4/2024, 18 January 2024). Here, enforcement from 5 June 2024 would force restitution of the evidence — challenging to reverse if the appeal succeeds. Respondents' legitimate interests not significantly affected; their 'appeal unfounded' argument does not change the outcome (goes to the merits, to be decided in the main appeal). No costs decision in this order (not a final order concluding the action; following UPC_CoA_433/2023, 3 April 2024, points 22-25).
This is the order of 2 May 2024 that is expressly referenced in node 936 (UPC_CoA_177/2024 final decision of 23 July 2024): 'The Court of Appeal has already decided upon Progress's request for suspensive effect of the appeal (see above paragraph 7, sub v) in its order of 2 May (UPC_CoA_177/2024 App_20143/2024).' This order preserved the evidence intact until the CoA could rule on the merits — a prerequisite for the landmark four-headnote final decision.
Stichwörter
Suspensive effect; revocation of order to preserve evidence and order for inspection; restitution of evidence