Rule 345 – Composition of panels and assignment of actions

1. The President of the Court of First Instance or a judge to whom he has delegated this task in a division, the seat of the central division or one of its sections shall allocate the judges to the panels of the local and regional divisions, the seat of the central division and its sections.

2. The allocation shall be in conformity with Article 8 of the Agreement.

3. The actions pending in the division, the seat of the central division or one of its sections shall be assigned to the panels by the Registrar following an action-distribution-scheme established by the presiding judge of each local or regional division, the seat of the central division and its sections (being the judge appointed by the Presidium as the presiding judge) for the duration of one calendar year, preferably distributing the actions according to the date of receipt of the actions at the division or section.

4. Each panel may delegate to one or more judges of the panel: (a) the function of acting as a single judge; or (b) the function of acting for the panel in the procedures of Part 1 Chapter 4 (Procedure for the Determination of Damages and Compensation, including the procedure for the laying open of books) and Chapter 5 (Procedure for Cost Decisions). These functions may be delegated to the judge-rapporteur who has prepared the action for the oral hearing.

5. The President of the Court of First Instance or a judge to whom he has delegated this task in a division, the seat of the central division or one of its sections shall designate the judges assigned to each division, the seat of the central division and each of its sections as standing judges for urgent actions. The assignment may be limited to certain periods of time.

6. If all parties agree to having the action heard by a single judge, the presiding judge of the panel to which the action is allocated shall assign the action to a legally qualified judge of the panel.

7. Where paragraphs 1 to 6 apply to decisions by the presiding judge of the seat of the central division or one of its sections, the President of the Court of First Instance may of his own motion review that decision.

8. Paragraphs 1 to 6 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Court of Appeal; the President of the Court of Appeal exercising the respective functions.

Relation with Statute: Article 19

Case Law:

IPPT20230705, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Bitzer v Carrier

Rule 16(3) RoP correction of deficiencies in the Statement of Claim is not an urgent action as mentioned in Rule 345(5) RoP that requires a standing judge. The abovementioned R. 16-5 RoP is not applicable in the present situation, as the claimant did not fail to correct the deficiencies within 14 days of service of the Registry’s notification but was only asked to amend the statement of claim according to the relevant correction provided in a separate document. The claimant is at the time of the present order allowed to lodge an amended statement of claim pursuant to R. 16-3 RoP.

IPPT20230613, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Himson
No extreme urgency requiring standing judge to decide on application to preserve evidence (Rule 194(4) RoP, Rule 345 RoP). The claimant argues that the order for preserving evidence is extremely urgent due to the end of the fair in Milan, which will end on the 14th of June. The application has been lodged on the 12th afternoon. At this stage, it is still possible for the presiding judge in the local division of Milan to make an urgent decision before the end of the fair.