Rule 116 – Absence of a party from the oral hearing

1. A party which does not wish to be represented at the oral hearing shall inform the Registry in good time. Where both parties have informed the Registry that they do not wish to be represented at the oral hearing, the Court may decide the action in accordance with Rule 117.

2. The Court shall not be obliged to delay any step in the procedure, including the decision on the merits, by reason only of the absence of a party from the oral hearing.

3. A party that is not represented at the oral hearing shall be treated as relying only on its written case.

4. If due to an exceptional occurrence a party is prevented from being represented at the oral hearing, the Court shall on a reasoned request of that party, adjourn the oral hearing.

5. The provisions of this Rule are without prejudice to the power of the Court to give a decision by default pursuant to Rule 355.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20250710, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International
Absence of a party in summary proceedings from the oral hearing does not necessitate a default judgement (R. 210(3) RoP, R. 116 RoP, R. 355 RoP). Pursuant to R. 210(3) RoP, Rules 111 to 116 of the Rules of Procedure apply mutatis mutandis to summary proceedings. On this basis, the court is not obliged to postpone a procedural step, including a decision on the merits, solely because a party was not present at the oral hearing (R. 116(2) RoP). According to R. 116(3) RoP, a party not represented at the oral hearing shall be treated as if it were relying solely on its written submissions. Accordingly, the Local Chamber based its order on the respondent's submissions in the statement of opposition.