Rule 291 – Exclusion from the proceedings

1. If the Court considers that the conduct of a party’s representative towards the Court, towards any judge of the Court or towards any member of the staff of the Registry is incompatible with the dignity of the Court or with the requirements of the proper administration of justice, or that such representative uses his rights for purposes other than those for which they were granted, or that such representative is otherwise in breach of any code of conduct adopted pursuant to Rule 290.2 it shall so inform the person concerned. On the same grounds, the Court may at any time, after having given the person concerned an opportunity to be heard, exclude that person from the proceedings by way of order. That order shall have immediate effect.

2. Where a party’s representative is excluded from the proceedings, the proceedings shall be stayed for a period fixed by the presiding judge in order to enable the party concerned to appoint another representative.

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260126, UPC CoA, Sun v Vivo
Liability and penalties for breach of confidentiality club regime (R. 262A RoP). No liability of the UPC representative of a party in the event of a breach of a duty of confidentiality. A penalty payment may be imposed on a party to the proceedings. It does not release said representative from its obligation to ensure that that each member of the legal team is bound by the provisions of the confidentiality order and also does not release him or her from its rights and obligations under the UPC Agreement and the Rules of Procedure. ailing which the Court may exclude said representative from the proceedings by way or order under the conditions set forth under R. 291.1 RoP.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20250709, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, InterDigital v Disney
Order under penalty of a fine of € 100.000 to accept service of anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) by the representatives of defendants in the main proceedings (R. 354.3 RoP, R. 213 RoP). The request and the order issued are therefore inextricably linked to the main proceedings. Therefore, the power of attorney cannot be effectively restricted in this respect either. This is already evident from the fact that the representation of the respondents by the lawyers in the main proceedings clearly cannot depend on whether the AASI application is filed in the main proceedings themselves as an accompanying application under Rule 206 VerfO or in separate application proceedings. In both cases, the subject matter is the same: the protection of the main proceedings from the imposition of a ban on litigation in a foreign forum, which is intended to prevent the domestic continuation of the proceedings. Violation of code of conduct by representative which may lead to exclusion (R. 290.2 RoP, R. 291 RoP).

IPPT20250313, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Suinno v Microsoft
Action not manifestly bound to fail (R.361 RoP). Lack of a valid representation of a party requires the Court to grant that party an opportunity to remedy the deficit and, therefore, does not lead to the declaration of the inadmissibility of the action or the application filed by this party (R. 291 RoP)

IPPT20250303, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Suinno v Microsoft
Exclusion of […] as representative of Suinno and granting a period of 30 days to appoint and instruct a new representative, who shall be required to ratify the written pleadings submitted by […] (R. 291 RoP, R. 9 RoP)