Case Law
Rule 199: Order for inspection

Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division, Order dated 08/04/2024, PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v. AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A. ORD_9710/2024
Example of decision on applications for preserving evidence and for an order for inspection :“The written report and any other outcome of the measures to inspect premises and to preserve evidence may only be used in the proceedings on the merits, in accordance with Rules 196.2 and 199 RoP. This means that access to the contents of the reports is solely for their use in the subsequent main proceedings, against the same parties.
Therefore, there is no possibility of granting PMA access to the report, as the Applicant irretrievably failed to comply with the time limit set out in Art. 60 UPCA and Rule 198.1 RoP. The request for access is inadmissible and must be dismissed, as the Applicant cannot use its contents in the only permissible lawful manner, namely in an action on the merits against AWM and Schnell.”

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division, Order dated 01/03/2024, C-Kore / Novawell (Case number UPC_CFI_397/2023 App_601-2024)
Example of decision on the need for a request : “The request for preservation of evidence (Saisie) and the request for inspection are two different and distinct procedures, each with a different purpose, the first being governed by Rules R. 192 to R. 198 RoP, in order to collect and seize evidence by detailed description or physically, and the second by Rule R. 199, in order to inspect products, devices, methods, premises or local situations in situ ("descente sur les lieux"). 8 This means that there is no need to combine the two measures, even though the first obviously requires the right to enter a private place.”