CoA Luxembourg, April 26, 2024, UPC_CoA_500/2023

It is true that the time period for lodging an appeal is a mandatory time limit that cannot be extended (see R. 9.4 RoP)

However, an excusable error can, in exceptional circumstances, justify a derogation from that rule. That is in particular so when it was the conduct of the court, either alone or to a decisive extent, that gave rise to confusion by a party, who acted in good faith and displayed all the diligence required of a normally well-informed person.

The Court of First Instance in its impugned decision gave the wrong impression that the time period stated in R.224.1(a) RoP would apply also to an appeal in
ACT_551054/2023. The Court of First Instance incorrectly combined its decision in the infringement proceedings with the order in the provisional measure proceedings in one and the same decision, without making any distinction between them, in particular by not rejecting the request in the provisional measure proceedings by way of an order. Furthermore, the Court of First Instance also provided in its decision the wrong, or at least incomplete, information on the time period for lodging the Statement of appeal in the separate proceedings, in particular by not referring to R.220.1(c) RoP and R.224.1(b) RoP as well, thus leading AIM to believe that a two months time period applied for appeals in both proceedings.