LD The Hague, June 9, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1470/2026

Where multiple defendants are served at slightly different times, the Court may set under R. 9.3 RoP uniform dates for the lodging of a Preliminary Objection (R. 19.1 RoP), the Statement of Defence (R. 23 RoP), and any Counterclaim for Revocation (R. 25.1 RoP), ensuring orderly proceedings. The effective service date for one defendant who did not yet make an appearance in court was deemed to be the tenth day following posting under R. 271.6.b RoP and the dates for lodging the submissions for all defendants were calculated based on this effective service date. However, the effective service date remains subject to the conditions set forth in the latter part of that rule, which provide for potential challenges to the effectiveness of service (“unless it has failed to reach the addressee, has in fact reached him on a later date or the acknowledgement of receipt or equivalent has not been returned”). Because the unrepresented defendant had not yet appeared in the proceedings, it could not have raised any objection under R. 271.6.b RoP. The judge-rapporteur therefore aligned the deadlines for all defendants but included an express proviso preserving the absent defendant’s right to challenge the service date at a later stage.