2024-05-10 - CD Paris - CEAD v. BEGO Medical - UPC_CFI_367/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_367/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
- Art:
- Application Order
- Parteien:
- CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V.
Kernaussage: Revisiting the scope of Art.
2024-05-10 - CD Paris - CEAD
v.
BEGO Medical - UPC_CFI_367/2023
notable
Revisiting the scope of Art. 51(2) UPCA and R. 109 RoP, the Paris Central Division (Rapporteur Haedicke) held that court-ordered simultaneous interpretation at the expense of procedural costs is not justified where a party is represented by a multilingual team in which at least some members are fluent in the language of proceedings. The fact that one of four representatives (Dr. Maas) does not speak German does not entitle the party to an interpretation whose costs become recoverable procedural costs under R. 109(5) RoP — otherwise parties could inflate procedural costs by assembling linguistically diverse teams. The Court applied the Court of Appeal's UPC_CoA_101/2024 reasoning on language change by analogy to interpretation orders: the linguistic profile of a single representative within a multilingual team is not decisive. For central-division revocation proceedings under Art. 49(6) UPCA, the language is fixed by the language of grant and the claimant cannot use linguistic hardship to extract procedural-cost advantages. The Court nevertheless granted the claimants' subsidiary request under R. 109(2) sentence 2 RoP for party-funded simultaneous interpretation into Dutch or English for Dr. Maas, with use of the courtroom equipment permitted.
Stichwörter
Anordnung der Simultanverdolmetschung, Art. 109 VerfO
Inoffiziell
Inoffizielle KI-Übersetzung
Dies ist eine automatische, von KI erstellte Übersetzung, die Fehler enthalten kann. Rechtsverbindlich ist allein das Originaldokument in der Verfahrenssprache (German).