Overview · Filed: Sep 23, 2024
UPC_CoA_548/2024
A DEVICE FOR CARBONATING A LIQUID WITH PRESSURIZED GAS
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealCase Closed
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Rules of Procedure · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 158 | security for costs — relevant criteria | Binding | When deciding on a request for security for costs - failing any guarantees or other special circumstances, it is not relevant whether the claimant belongs to a - financially sound - group of companies. |
EPC article · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 69(1) | costs — unsuccessful party bears costs | Background | Security for costs (R.158 RoP), relevant criteria |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
| Cited in | Date | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CFI_723/2025 Dusseldorf LD | Nov 6, 2025 | security for costs | Binding | the applicant shall not only provide evidence as to the foreign law applicable in the territory where the order is to be enforced, but also on its application (CoA 29 November 2024, UPC_CoA_548/2024 APL_52969/2024, Aarke v Sodastream). |
| UPC_CFI_26/2024 Dusseldorf LD | Jun 15, 2025 | standard for security for costs - undue burden of enforcement | Binding | The Court of Appeal of the UPC (CoA) has on its order 29 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_548/2024, APL_52969/2024 – Aarke v SodaStream) ruled that, when deciding on a request for security for costs, it is not required that it is proven that enforcement is impossible. |