UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, 16 July 2025: Request for penalty warning letter rejected
10-08-2025 Print this page
Panel rejects request to review rejection by judge-rapporteur of request to issue a penalty warning letter (R. 354 RoP, R. 333 RoP)).
The panel did not - in the main decision - fix time periods for the fulfilment of operative parts B.III, B.IV. and B.V. and also did not decide on amounts of penalty up-front. All related points will have to be addressed in the course of an application to impose penalties and only there appropriate penalties will have to be set in the light of the facts of the case. If Claimant had disagreed with the main decision, it would have been bound to challenge the points subject to this review with an appeal against the decision on the merits. It is not for the panel to now alter the operative part of that decision upon a request for panel review.
IPPT20250716, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak
Request to issue a penalty warning rejected (Article 82(4) UPCA, R. 354 RoP). The panel explicitly decided in the main decision that no fixed time period for the provision of the information is set and that no amount of penalty is set up-front. All related points will have to be addressed in the course of an application to impose penalties.
