2024-09-09 - LD Helsinki - Aim Sport Development v. TGI Sport - UPC_CFI_214/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_214/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Helsinki (FI) Local Division
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- AIM Sport Development AG v. TGI Sport Suomi Oy, TGI Sport Virtual Limited, TGI Sport France SASU, TGI Sport Italia S.r.l., TGI Sport Marketing España, S.L., TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited
Kernaussage: The Helsinki Local Division refused to rule on two pending cost applications until the Court of Appeal has decided the appeals against its 20 October 2023 disposal of an infringement action and a provisional-measures application for lack of competence.
2024-09-09 - LD Helsinki - Aim Sport Development
v.
TGI Sport - UPC_CFI_214/2023
notable
The Helsinki Local Division refused to rule on two pending cost applications until the Court of Appeal has decided the appeals against its 20 October 2023 disposal of an infringement action and a provisional-measures application for lack of competence. The Court held that neither the UPCA nor the RoP fixes when a cost decision must be taken: Preamble 7 RoP ('at the same time or as soon as practicable thereafter') refers to the end of the first-instance proceedings, so the Court of First Instance is neither obliged to await the appeal nor barred from doing so. It rejected the respondent's reading of Rule 150.1 RoP, holding that 'a decision on the merits' cannot be confined to substantive rulings and covers a dismissal resting on procedural argumentation. Exercising the discretion it had thus identified, the Court deferred the cost decision because the Court of Appeal may under Rule 242 RoP refer the cases back, which would make any cost decision premature, and because Rule 242.1 RoP permits the Court of Appeal to rule on first-instance costs itself.