Hanshow Germany v VusionGroup (CoA, 24 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By decision of 24 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_285/2025), the Court of Appeal (Presiding Judge Grabinski, Judge Gougé as judge-rapporteur, and Judge Germano) permitted Hanshow Germany to withdraw its appeal, limited to costs, against the Paris Central Division’s decision of 27 January 2025. That decision had closed, following Hanshow’s withdrawal, its revocation action against VusionGroup’s (formerly SES-imagotag) EP 3 883 277, set the value at EUR 2,500,000 and ordered Hanshow to bear the costs. The Court holds that closure of the appeal deprives the contested decision of effect.

Question

What effect does the withdrawal of an appeal on costs, consented to by the respondent, have on the first-instance decision under appeal?

Decision

As no final decision had been given, the request is admissible (paragraphs 6 and 7), since VusionGroup consented, it has no legitimate interest in a decision, and the proceedings are closed (paragraph 8). The proceedings being closed, the contested decision has no effect (paragraph 9, citing DexCom v Abbott). No costs decision is needed, both parties having asked that each bear its own costs (paragraph 10). As the withdrawal came before the close of the written procedure, Hanshow obtains reimbursement of 60% of its appeal court fees (paragraphs 11 and 12).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: the Court of Appeal treats withdrawal of the appeal as depriving the decision under appeal of effect, even where the appeal concerned costs only, a settlement on appeal can thus neutralise a first-instance costs order.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 265 and 370.9(b)(i)

Case law cited

DexCom v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 24 January 2025 (UPC_CoA_505/2024)

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.