2025-01-09 - CD Paris - Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Itcico Spain - UPC_CFI_412/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_412/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
- Art:
- Application Order
- Parteien:
- ITCiCo Spain v. BMW
Kernaussage: Rule 356 (2) ‘RoP’, insofar as it requires an explanation of the default, shall be interpreted to mean that the applicant must demonstrate that they were unable to comply with peremptory time limits or to appear at the oral hearing at which they were summoned (except as prov…
2025-01-09 - CD Paris - Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
v.
Itcico Spain - UPC_CFI_412/2023
Rule 356 (2) ‘RoP’, insofar as it requires an explanation of the default, shall be interpreted to mean that the applicant must demonstrate that they were unable to comply with peremptory time limits or to appear at the oral hearing at which they were summoned (except as provided for in Rule 116 and 117 ‘RoP’) due to reasons beyond their control and therefore that the default is not attributable to their own fault but was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure.
The Paris Central Division rejected an application to set aside a decision by default as the requirements (see the headnotes) were no met. The Court explained the requirements of Rule 356.2 in more detail.
Stichwörter
decision by default