UPC CFI, LD Munich, 2 April 2026 : Second application for postponement of scheduled oral hearing dismissed for lack of sufficient grounds.
01-07-2026 Print this page
Second application for postponement of scheduled oral hearing dismissed - lack of sufficient grounds. (Rule 9 RoP , Rule 112 RoP).
If the Court invites the parties to comment on proposed dates for the interim conference or the oral hearing, UPC representatives are expected to respond promptly, and no later than the expiration of the deadline set for them.
Once a hearing date has been set, subsequent requests for a postponement will be rejected,
unless there are substantial grounds which, evident to the Court, make it unreasonable for a party to attend, thereby justifying a postponement in the specific case.
The compelling reasons for a postponement must be set out in the application for postponement so that they may be taken into account in the Court’s discretionary decision.
This also applies if the late request refers to one of the other dates originally proposed by the Court .
Once a date has been agreed upon with the parties, potential alternative dates are generally no longer reserved for a specific proceeding.
