Author: Niels Gierse

  • CoA, May 22, 2026, judgement by default, UPC_CoA_21/2026

    For the purposes of R. 355.2 RoP the appellant is regarded as the claimant in the appeal proceedings: A decision by default against the defendant of the claim or counterclaim may only be given where the facts put forward by the claimant justify the remedy sought and the procedural conduct of the defendant does not…

  • CoA, May 15, 2026, order on request for use of English at oral hearing, UPC-CoA-50/2026

    The Court of Appeal may authorize oral hearings in a language other than the language of proceedings, without formally changing the language of the case, based on considerations of pragmatism and procedural efficiency: The appellants’ representative understood French but lacked sufficient oral proficiency for optimal representation. The Court permitted both parties to plead in English…

  • LD Hamburg, May 20, 2026, order on penalty payments, UPC_CFI_553/2025

    An obligation to refrain from an act also requires a permanent compliance with effective measurements to ensure that the compliance is uninterrupted and permanent, R. 354.4 RoP.: In the absence of any indication to the contrary, the obligation to refrain from an act which has created a continuing disturbance must generally be interpreted as encompassing…

  • CoA, May 19, 2026, order on request for a discretionary review, UPC-CoA-67/2026

    Requirements for discretionary review pursuant to R. 220.3 RoP: When deciding whether to allow a discretionary review, the Court of Appeal must consider whether the impugned order of the Court of First Instance is manifestly erroneous and whether the impugned order raises a fundamental question of law and its review is necessary to ensure a…

  • LD The Hague, May 19, 2026, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI-2228/2025, UPC_CFI-1546/2026

    Assuming jurisdiction under Art. 8(1) Brussels I Regulation requires a sufficient connection between the defendant and the court seised: The application of the Brussels I Regulation’s (BR) rules to defendants who are not domiciled in a Member State of the UPCA is limited to situations where this is appropriate, regardless of domicile (cf. 71b(2) BR).…

  • LD Düsseldorf, February 2, 2026, Procedural orders of good service of PI decisions, UPC_CFI_449/2025 and UPC_CFI_515/2025

    The publication of an order on the Court’s website, of which the Defendant had been notified via email, constitutes good service if there are no other effective means of informing the Defendant of the preliminary injunction and the ordering of further provisional measures.: In both cases, UPC_CFI_449/2025 and UPC_CFI_515/2025, the Court had previously ordered in…

  • LD Mannheim, January 30, 2026, Order by the Panel on application for the imposition of penalties, UPC_CFI_365/2023

    A penalty order pursuant to R. 354.4 RoP may be issued by the Judge-rapporteur alone.: It is noted that Defendants’ opinion, that an Order issued by the Judge-rapporteur alone was not allowable, is not supported. The Panel has seen the Order of the CoA, to which Defendants refer. However, the Panel respectfully invites to reconsider…

  • LD Düsseldorf, February 2, 2026, Cost decision, UPC_CFI_658/2025

    1. Costs incurred in PI proceedings are reimbursable separately, even though the decision on the reimbursability of these costs is to be taken in a uniform cost procedure following the proceedings on the merits. Therefore, the ceilings for the PI proceedings and the proceedings on the merits must be determined separately (follow up to UPC_CFI_121/2025…

  • Court of Appeal, October 14, 2025, appeal against an order re. penalty payments, UPC_CoA_699/2025

    System of penalties under the Rules of Procedure, specifics of a penalty order (R. 354.3, R.354.4 RoP): Pursuant to R. 354.3 RoP an order or decision may include an order for the forfeiture of a penalty sum in case of (future) non-compliance with an order (hereinafter: a penalty order). Although this must be considered the…

  • LD Düsseldorf, October 16, 2025, order re. service of PI request under the Hague Convention

    If an application for provisional measures is to be served under the Hague Convention, and the authority responsible for the service informs the Court several months after the request that service cannot be effected because the defendant does not exist at the provided address, the Court may deem the steps taken so far sufficient for…

  • Court of Appeal, May 30, 2025, Orders, UPC_CoA_845/2024, UPC_CoA_50/2025

    Appeals and cross-appeals are broadly admissible, but the Court will not worsen the position of the appealing party (reformatio in peius) (Art. 73(2) UPCA, R. 220.1, R. 226(b) RoP).: The Court apportions costs based on the degree of success, considering equity and the reasonableness of the parties’ positions. Orders to communicate information must specify a…

  • Milan Local Division, June 2, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_181/2025

    Joint request for stay of proceedings removes court discretion (Rule 295(d) RoP, Art. 43, 76(1) UPCA): When all parties jointly request a stay, the court must grant it, regardless of the permissive wording in the rule. This upholds party autonomy in determining the subject matter and conduct of their case. Partial stays are permitted for…