2026-09-03 - CoA - Anonymisiert (vertr. Michal PRZYLUSKI) v. Amycel - UPC-COA-0000935/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-COA-0000935/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU)
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- REDACTED PARTY v. Amycel LLC
Kernaussage: The judge-rapporteur refused to arrange simultaneous interpretation for an appellant who is a natural person and says his command of the language of the proceedings is insufficient.
2026-09-03 - CoA - Anonymisiert (vertr. Michal PRZYLUSKI)
v.
Amycel - UPC-COA-0000935/2025
notable
The judge-rapporteur refused to arrange simultaneous interpretation for an appellant who is a natural person and says his command of the language of the proceedings is insufficient. Whether interpretation is appropriate under Art. 51(2) UPCA and R. 109.2 RoP is assessed case by case, weighing the parties' legitimate interests against the efficient and cost-effective conduct of the proceedings, and against the system of compulsory professional representation. That the party is a natural person attending in person is relevant but not by itself decisive: where he is duly represented and does not say his representative cannot conduct the hearing, his interest in following the hearing and communicating with that representative does not make Court-arranged interpretation appropriate. The order also separates the two routes in R. 109 RoP: an interpreter the party engages itself at its own expense falls under R. 109.4 RoP and needs no authorisation from the Court. Admissibility under the one-month deadline in R. 109.1 RoP was left open.