2025-04-17 - CoA - Kodak v. Fujifilm - UPC_CoA_312/2025; UPC_CoA_325/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CoA_312/2025; UPC_CoA_325/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Fujifilm v. Kodak
Kernaussage: Where there is an uncontested fact as meant in R.
2025-04-17 - CoA - Kodak
v.
Fujifilm - UPC_CoA_312/2025; UPC_CoA_325/2025
Where there is an uncontested fact as meant in R. 171.2 RoP, this does not imply that the legal consequence for which this fact was submitted automatically follows. It still falls upon the Court to decide whether the facts advanced justify such a legal consequence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for suspensive effect, weighing the interests of the parties involved. The CoA clarified that although facts may be indisputed, the legal consequences to not automatically follow but need to be decided on by the Court.
Stichwörter
suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP); uncontested fact (R. 171.2 RoP)