2025-09-01 - LD Hamburg - FAKRO v. Dolle - UPC_CFI_718/2024

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_718/2024
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division
Art:
Order
Parteien:
FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH, FAKRO Danmark A/S, FAKRO Sp.z.o.o, FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH v. Dolle A/S

Kernaussage: The Hamburg Local Division refused an application by four defendants for court-ordered simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing from German into Polish.

2025-09-01 - LD Hamburg - FAKRO v. Dolle - UPC_CFI_718/2024
🗂️Nur Fallakte
Eine Entscheidung, mehrere Aktenzeichen

Das Gericht hat diese Verfahren zusammen entschieden und dasselbe Dokument in jedem davon eingestellt. Jeder Eintrag unten ist ein eigener vollwertiger Registereintrag.

  • UPC_CFI_461/2024 Text zuerst hier gespeichert
  • UPC_CFI_718/2024 (Sie lesen diesen hier)
🏛️Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division• Order
📅2025-09-01
🔢UPC_CFI_718/2024
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH
FAKRO Danmark A/S
FAKRO Sp.z.o.o
FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH
Julian WACHINGER
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Dolle A/S
Sönke SCHELTZ
⚖️Counter claim for revocation
🌐German
🤖🇬🇧

notable
The Hamburg Local Division refused an application by four defendants for court-ordered simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing from German into Polish. It set out the framework: Art. 51(2) UPCA obliges the divisions to provide interpretation where appropriate on a party's request, R. 109.2 RoP leaves it to the judge-rapporteur to decide whether and to what extent simultaneous interpretation is appropriate, and where it is ordered the cost falls into the costs of the proceedings under R. 150 RoP, whereas a party that engages its own interpreter after a refusal bears that cost alone under R. 109.4 and R. 109.5 RoP. Adopting the two-step test developed by The Hague Local Division in Szymon Spyra v Amycel and joined by Düsseldorf in Fujifilm v Kodak, the Division asked first whether interpretation is appropriate at all and only then whether its cost should become a cost of the proceedings. Interpretation into Polish was refused because three of the four defendants are German, Austrian and Danish companies with no connection to that language, and because the persons the fourth defendant wished to have follow the hearing were neither parties nor legal representatives but employees, an external legal adviser and staff of a different Polish company.

Inoffiziell

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren