Case Law
Rule 224: Time periods for lodging the Statement of appeal and the Statement of grounds of appeal

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 22/05/2024, AUDI AG (Case/ Registry number: App_29007/2024, ORD_29909/2024)
Example of decision on a refusal to shorten a time period: “6. Audi has not explained that and why it would have a particular interest in the Statement of response being filed before any particular date, prior to the end of the time period of 15 days as provided for in R.224.2(b) RoP. Failing such a reason, the Court of Appeal cannot, in view of the interests of NST and the principles of proportionality, fairness and equity, also taking into account the time period Audi has taken to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal, see any reason to shorten the time period within which NST is to lodge its Statement of response.
7. Insofar as the further appeal proceedings are concerned, the request is too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated to justify the shortening of any of the future time periods at this stage of the proceedings.”

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 26/02/2024, AIM Sport Vision AG / Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL (Registry number: ORD_10103/2024 ORD_10103/2024)
Example of decision on time period for lodging a Statement of appeal: “In the ‘Information about Appeal’, the CFI, indicating that the decision could be appealed by the unsuccessful party within two months of the date of notification of the decision, referred to Article 73(1) UPCA and R.220.1(a) and R.224.1(a) RoP. These provisions concern an appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance, such as a decision in an infringement action, like ACT_545571/2023, lodged by AIM in parallel to ACT_551054/2023.”
“5. Neither the UPCA, nor the Rules of Procedure contain a provision that allows a Court of First Instance to determine a time period for lodging a Statement of appeal in derogation from R.224, in particular R.224.1(b) RoP.”