Case Law
Rule 109: Simultaneous interpretation during oral hearings
Court of First Instance - The Hague (NL) Local Division, Order dated 21/06/2024, Spyra Szymon Spyra v. Amycel LLC (Case/ Registry number: App_35134/2024, ORD_35405/2024)
Example of decision on the costs of a simultaneous interpretation: "12. In view of the above circumstances and at this point in time with limited knowledge of the arguments of defendants on the merits of the case, the JR shall therefore reject the request for the Court to arrange simultaneous interpretation and for the costs involved to become costs of the proceedings. The Defendant is permitted to engage an interpreter at his own expense. He can contact the registry to arrange practicalities to this effect.
13. According to the JR, it seems reasonable to interpret R. 109.5 in such a way that it does not prevent the Defendant from submitting the costs incurred for interpretation for recovery as costs of the proceedings at a later point in the proceedings, if facts and/or circumstances are established that make it unreasonable for Defendant to bear these costs. A precondition for such recovery would be that Amycel’s main action is dismissed and Amycel is ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, but this alone is not sufficient."
Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat, Order dated 10/05/2024, CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V. (Registry number : App_23523/2024 ORD_24708/2024)
Example of decision on simultaneous interpretation: “24. Pursuant to Rule 109 (2) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, the parties may request that, as far as practically possible, arrangements be made for simultaneous interpreting at their expense. In this case, the applicants must inform the Registry of such an intention two weeks before the oral hearing."
“The applicants must provide the necessary simultaneous interpreter at their own expense. The applicants are authorised to use the equipment available for this purpose in the meeting room for simultaneous interpreting.”
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division, Order dated 22/03/2024, 10x Genomics, Inc./ Curio Bisscience Inc. (Case number : UPC_CFI_463/2023 ; ORD_14983/2024)
Example of decision of simultaneous interpretation of oral proceedings: “Pursuant to Art. 51 para. 2 UPCA, all chambers of the Court of First Instance shall, where appropriate, provide for interpretation at the request of a party in order to assist the party at the oral hearing. This general principle is further concretised in R. 109 RoP. If, on this basis, there is no timely request for simultaneous interpretation within the meaning of R. 109.1 of the Rules of Procedure - as is the case here on the defendant’s side - or if such a request was rejected by the judge- rapporteur, the party is at liberty to appoint an interpreter themselves at their own expense (R. 109.4 of the Rules of Procedure) in the event that the judge- rapporteur does not order interpretation ex officio (R. 109.3 of the Rules of Procedure). In this case, it must inform the registry of such an intention two weeks before the oral hearing.”
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division, Order dated 1/03/2024, 10x Genomics, Inc. /Curio Bioscience Inc. (Case number: UPC_CFI_463/2023 ORD_10143/2024)
Example of decision of simultaneous interpretation of oral proceedings: “In view of the course of the proceedings to date, there is no reason for the judge-rapporteur to order simultaneous interpreting (R. 109 para. 2 sentence 1 RoP). When filing her application for interim measures, the applicant opted for German as the language of the proceedings. It also opposed the application filed by the defendant to change the language of the proceedings from German to English. In the proceedings pursuant to R. 323 RoP, the President of the Court of First Instance subsequently rejected the application to change the language of proceedings, which is why - in accordance with the applicant’s wishes - German remains the language of proceedings.”