2025-03-31 - CD Paris - Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Itcico Spain - UPC_CFI_412/2023

1. The circumstances contemplated by Rule 356 ‘RoP’ (clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, obvious slips) all consist of a discrepancy between the judge’s intended decision and its material representation, provided that this can be deduced from a comparison between the part affected by the error and the considerations contained in the reasoning. These kinds of errors are the ones that do not concern the identification and evaluation of the relevant elements of the case and the subsequent formation of the judgment, but rather the external expression of the judgment itself. 2. The application to set aside the decision by default constitutes an internal procedural remedy and, as such, is not suitable for giving rise to a decision on the merits and, therefore, does not require a decision on the obligation to bear the associated costs. Consequently, the costs incurred by the successful party in this step can be claimed and assessed within the proceedings for a cost decision related to the main proceedings which concluded with the decision by default.

The Paris Central Division rejected an application for rectification (Rule 356) and an application for a cost decision (Rule 150) regarding the opponent's application to set aside a decision by default. The Court explained the purpose of Rule 356 and that there was no reason for rectification. With regard to the cost application the Court stated that setting aside the decision by default did not require a cost decision as costs would be assessed within the costs of the main proceedings.