Case Law
Rule 296: Duration and effects of a stay of proceedings

Court of First Instance - Nordic-Baltic - regional division, Order dated 16/08/2024, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited (Case/ Registry number: App_43606/2024, ORD_44404/2024)
Example of decision on the term "to run afresh": "According to the 296.3 RoP time shall cease to run for the purposes of procedural period. Time shall begin to run afresh for the purpose of procedural period from the date on which the stay of proceedings come to an end. The procedural rules do not specify the exact further course of the proceedings once the ground for staying the proceedings has ceased to exist.
The exact meaning of the term” to run afresh” is not given in the rules. A traditional distinction is made between suspension and interruption. Suspension of the proceedings means that, if the ground for suspension no longer applies, the proceedings are resumed from where they left off. In the event of a time-limit being interrupted, the procedure starts again from the beginning as soon as the ground for suspension is removed.
The Court considers that the vagueness of the procedural rules is intentional in this context, leaving the court a wide discretion to design the procedure in accordance with the relevant general principles such as procedural economy and flexibility. In the court’s view, this is essentially a situation in which the claimant has to bring a new action with clarified circumstances and the defendant has to put forward new defence accordingly, derived from the TBA decision. The Court is in the position, that the written procedure as such has to be repeated, but with shorter time limits."