Overview · Filed: —
APL_33746/2024
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppeal RoP220.2—
This case cites
Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.
Rules of Procedure · 5
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 222.2 | security for costs | Binding | The Court of Appeal shall of its own motion consider how to exercise its discretion under R.222.2 RoP. The Court of Appeal may therefore decide to disregard late filed requests, facts, and evidence even if these were not objected to by the other party. |
| 172.1 | security for costs | Binding | From R.172.1 RoP it clearly follows that there is a duty to provide evidence that is already available to a party. |
| 172.2 | security for costs | Binding | The Court has a discretionary power to request the production of evidence pursuant to R.172.2 RoP. It is not obliged to do so. |
| 158 | security for costs | Binding | A bank guarantee issued by a bank licensed in the US does not provide adequate security, as R.158 RoP requires. |
| 222.1 | security for costs | Binding | According to R.222.1 RoP, requests, facts, evidence and arguments submitted by the parties under R.221, R.225, R.226, R.236 and R.238 RoP shall, subject to R. 222.2 RoP, constitute the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal. |
EPC article · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| 74(4) | security for costs | Binding | Art. 74(4) UPCA provides that new facts and new evidence may only be introduced in accordance with the RoP and where the submission thereof by the party concerned could not reasonably have been expected during proceedings before the Court of First Instance. |
UPC (CFI) · 1
| Target | Legal point | Strength | Excerpt |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPC_CFI_495/2023 | security for costs | Background | Date: 21 May 2024; ORD_23494/2024 in related proceedings (application for security for costs) App_22767/2024, in the main infringement action ACT_596432/2023; Action number attributed by the Court of First Instance, Local Division Paris: UPC_CFI_495/2023 |
Cited by
Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.
Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.