Rule 156 – Further procedure
Print this page1. The judge-rapporteur may request the applicant to provide written evidence of all costs requested in Rule 151(d). The judge-rapporteur shall allow the unsuccessful party an opportunity to comment in writing on the costs requested including any item of costs that should be apportioned or borne by each party in accordance with Article 69(1) to (3) of the Agreement.
2. The judge-rapporteur shall decide in writing on the costs to be awarded or apportioned in accordance with Article 69(1) to (3) of the Agreement.
3. The costs shall be paid within the period ordered by the judge-rapporteur.
Case Law
Court of First Instance
IPPT20250110, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Edwards Lifesciences v Meril
No legal basis for interest on reimbursable legal costs and other expenses (Article 69 UPCA, R. 156.2 RoP). A corresponding application of Rules 125 and 131 RoP, which govern the procedure for setting damages and compensation and expressly provide for interest, is ruled out.
IPPT20250116, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Avago v Tesla
Withdrawal of action, pending appeal (R. 265 RoP). If a case is pending before the court of appeal, the court of appeal has jurisdiction to decide on the admissibility of the applications for withdrawal. However, the situation is different for the request for the determination of the costs to be refunded under Rules 150 RoP. This is currently still pending at first instance, with the result that the court of first instance still has jurisdiction to allow its withdrawal, in accordance with the rules on the procedure for the determination of costs before the Judge-Rapporteur. In any case, Rule 265 RoP applies mutatis mutandis to the proceedings for the determination of costs, even if there is no explicit reference to that rule. Since this is not a measure of the direction of proceedings under Rules 331 et seq. RoP, but a substantive decision within the original jurisdiction of the Judge-Rapporteur under Rule 156.2 RoP, the Judge-Rapporteur also has original and sole jurisdiction to allow the withdrawal.
IPPT20250108, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v SWAT
Parties may not unilaterally submit written comments on opposing arguments absent express authorization from the Court (R. 156 RoP, R. 9 RoP). The Court has the discretionary power to allow the further exchange of written pleadings if it deems appropriate, if not essential, to hear from one or each party before rendering its decision on the matter.