2026-02-19 - LD Paris - Merz v. Viatris Sant - UPC-CFI-0000283/2026

- A “reasoned request”: The Applicant, which is a law firm, is justified in its request to access certain documents in the file supporting the final decision and procedural orders issued by the Court, to better understand the decisions rendered by the Court in the provisional measures dispute. (see: (CoA, 22 December 2025, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v Insulet and EOFlow, UPC_CoA_886/2025) - When deciding on the scope of access to the case file, the Judge rapporteur takes into account, on a case-by-case examination, the legitimate objective pursued by the applicant. (see decision of the Milan CD, 16/10/2025, Herbet Smith Freehills Kramer v. Insulet, EO Flow, UPC_941/2025) - Concerning documents in the file related to a point of law that was not addressed in the Court’s decision: in the case at hand, access to these documents will not be granted, as it is not justified by the legitimate interest (in better understanding the Court's decision) indicated by the Applicant in its request. - Confidentiality: At the time of filing, none of the above-mentioned documents was the subject of a request under R. 262.2 or R. 262A RoP, so these documents will be made available to the applicant (third-party requesting access to the case file) after the Registry has anonymised the personal data contained in those documents.

The Paris LD granted a law firm's R. 262.1(b) RoP request for third-party access to the case file in a provisional measures dispute (Merz v Viatris), but strictly limited the scope to the single legal issue actually decided — unreasonable delay under R. 211.4 RoP. Access to submissions on issues debated but not ruled upon (SPC validity, proportionality, balance of interests) was denied to protect the integrity of proceedings.