2023-09-27 - LD Milan - Oerlikon Textile v. Himson Engineering Private - UPC_CFI_240/2023

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_240/2023
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division
Art:
Order
Parteien:
Oerlikon textiles GmbH & Co KG v. Himson Engineering Private Limited

Kernaussage: la regola di cui all’art.

2023-09-27 - LD Milan - Oerlikon Textile v. Himson Engineering Private - UPC_CFI_240/2023
🏛️Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division• Order
📅2023-09-27
🔢UPC_CFI_240/2023
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG
Stefania BERGIA
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Himson Engineering Private Limited
Fabrizio JACOBACCI
📋ORD_569313/2023
⚖️Infringement Action
🌐Italian
🤖🇬🇧

la regola di cui all’art. 262.1. (ROP) richiede che la domanda sia svolta da un terzo soggetto – privato o pubblico - rispetto alle parti del procedimento. Non è soggetto terzo l’avvocato che si dichiara difensore della parte convenuta, asserendo di essere munito del solo mandato alle liti per accedere agli atti del procedimento ma non per costituirsi in giudizio, e chiede l’accesso al fascicolo prima del perfezionamento della notifica dell’atto di citazione per conoscere preventivamente gli atti.

notable
The Milan Local Division (judge-rapporteur Zana) clarified the scope of R. 262.1(b) RoP. The provision gives the 'public' — genuine third parties, whether public or private — access on reasoned request to written pleadings and evidence filed in a proceeding. A lawyer who claims to represent the defendant only for the purpose of accessing the file (not for appearing in the action) is not a third party in the sense of R. 262.1(b). Further, the motivation advanced — to have additional time to prepare the defence before service of the statement of claim — is an interest internal to the procedural dialectic, not one reflecting the public-transparency ratio of Art. 45 UPCA / R. 262 RoP. Even parties' consent cannot by itself compel access where other interests under Art. 45 UPCA militate against it. The appeal was admitted given the systemic importance of a coherent interpretation of R. 262.1(b) RoP (Preamble 8 RoP).
Stichwörter
Rule 262 1.(B) R.o.P. richiesta (rigettata): Soggetto non terzo.

Inoffiziell

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren