UPC CoA, 17 April 2025: Incorrect understanding of the legal consequence of an uncontested fact
23-05-2025 Print this page
Suspensive effect appeal rejected (Article 74 UPCA). Kodak has failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance’s findings and considerations constitute manifest errors, i.e. factual findings or legal considerations which prove to be untenable already on the basis of a summary assessment.
Incorrect understanding of the scope of R. 171.2 RoP regarding uncontested facts. If there is an uncontested fact, 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.
