UPC CoA 4/2026
Jan 7, 2026·EP2671766 · Hydraulic connector, in particular for a windscreen-wiper system of a motor vehicle
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Respondents
- ROBERT BOSCH DOO BeogradOperating co.
- ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S.Operating co.
- Robert Bosch GmbHOperating co.
- ROBERT BOSCH S.A.Operating co.
- ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A.Operating co.
- BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.Operating co.
Representatives- Johannes Heselberger-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Technology
- Mechanical engineeringTransport
- Language
- French
- First decided
- Jan 21, 2026
- Last decision
- Apr 3, 2026
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Judge Klaus Grabinski | Locked |
| Judge Emmanuel Gougé | Locked |
| Judge Ingeborg Simonsson | Locked |
At the UPC: Valeo Group (34 cases)·ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd (6 cases)
This dispute contains 2 other proceedings
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Court of Appeal·2026
- 2026-04-03Simultaneous InterpretationPublic
Summary: The Court of Appeal rejected the Respondents' request for simultaneous interpretation (R. 109 RoP) for the hearing scheduled on 27 April 2026. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the hearing would be conducted in English, accommodating both parties' practical preparation in that language without prejudicing the pending appeal decision on the language of proceedings in UPC_CFI_809/2025.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Request for simultaneous interpretation under R. 109 RoP
- Language of proceedings in appeal before Court of Appeal
- Representative's oral proficiency in language of proceedings
- Flexible and balanced procedure under UPC preamble
- 2026-02-11Appeal RoP220.2Public
Summary: Court of Appeal ruled on the admissibility of Valeo's appeal against the CFI's order on a preliminary objection. The appeal was declared admissible under R.220.2 RoP. The CoA also rejected Bosch's alternative request for a stay of the first-instance proceedings pending the appeal, finding that no exceptional circumstances justified a stay. The admissibility ruling concerned the correct appeal route where the judge-rapporteur allowed a preliminary objection but did not terminate proceedings as to all defendants.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Admissibility of appeal against preliminary objection order (R.220.1, R.220.2 RoP, Art.73 UPCA)
- Appeal route for order allowing preliminary objection without terminating proceedings
- Stay of first-instance proceedings pending appeal (R.21.2 RoP)
- 2026-01-21Appeal RoP220.2Public
Summary: Court of Appeal procedural order in the Valeo v. Bosch appeal concerning jurisdiction and language of proceedings. Paris Central Division had granted Bosch's preliminary objection, ordering transfer to Düsseldorf Local Division with English as language. Valeo appealed under R. 220.2 RoP requesting the Court of Appeal rule Paris Central Division has jurisdiction and French is the language.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Jurisdiction of Central Division vs. Local Division (Art. 33 UPCA)
- Language of proceedings
- Appeal under R. 220.2 RoP
- Preliminary objection on competence
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Case closed | 2026-06-22 | Not public |
| Decision | 2026-06-22 | Not public |
| Final Order | 2026-06-22 | Public |
| Oral procedure closed | 2026-05-04 | Not public |
| Hearing recording reference document | 2026-05-04 | Not public |
| Communication | 2026-04-17 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-04-03 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-04-03 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-03-30 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-03-30 | Not public |
Simultaneous interpretation is not justified merely because a party's representative lacks oral proficiency in the language of proceedings; parties must ensure their representatives are conversant in that language
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 109 RoP; Art. 48 UPCA; R. 8.1 RoP; CoA 317/2025 and CoA 376/2025 (Barco v Yealink, 21 Aug 2025); CoA_404/2023 (Ocado, 8 Feb 2024)Considerations of pragmatism and procedural efficiency justify conducting the hearing in English for all parties, given that first-instance proceedings and written submissions were being conducted in English
ClaimantLegal basis: UPC RoP Preamble para. 4 and 5
Simultaneous interpretation (French/English) should be ordered under R. 109.1 and R. 109.2 RoP because the respondents' representative is not sufficiently proficient in French oral expression, and proceedings in first instance were reorganised in English following the contested orders
RespondentLegal basis: R. 109.1 and R. 109.2 RoPIn the alternative, simultaneous interpretation should be arranged at the claimant's or respondents' expense under R. 109.2 second sentence RoP
RespondentLegal basis: R. 109.2 RoP