DISH Technologies v AYLO PREMIUM (CoA, 9 January 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 9 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_611/2024), the Court of Appeal ordered that 60% of the court fees for the appeal be refunded to DISH Technologies and Sling TV, who had lodged and then withdrawn an appeal against the Mannheim Local Division judge-rapporteur’s order requiring them to provide security of EUR 800,000 for Aylo’s costs (EP 2 479 680). The appellants sought a full refund of the EUR 1,500 paid, arguing that incorrect information on the available remedy in the contested order had forced them to appeal protectively. The Court kept to the refund cases set out in the Rules of Procedure.

Question

What share of the court fees is refunded when an appeal is withdrawn, and do incorrect instructions on the available remedy justify a full refund?

Decision

A refund requires a reasoned application and is available only in the cases provided for in Rules 370.9 and 370.10 (paragraph 8). Since withdrawal of an appeal is governed by Rule 265 applied by analogy, Rule 370.9(b)(i) applies accordingly: 60% is refunded where the withdrawal occurs before the closure of the written procedure (paragraph 9). The Rules provide for no larger refund on withdrawal of an appeal (paragraph 10). The main request is dismissed and the alternative request granted (paragraph 7).

Key points for practice

• A protective appeal later withdrawn costs at least 40% of the court fees, even where it was prompted by incorrect information on the available remedy.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 265, 370.9, 370.10 and 370.11

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, order of 5 July 2024, UPC_CoA_234/2024

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.