Rule 36 – Further exchanges of written pleadings

Without prejudice to the powers of the judge-rapporteur pursuant to Rule 110.1, on a reasoned request by a party lodged before the date on which the judge-rapporteur intends to close the written procedure [Rule 35(a)], the judge-rapporteur may allow the exchange of further written pleadings, within a period to be specified. Where the exchange of further written pleadings is allowed, the written procedure shall be deemed closed upon expiry of the specified period.

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20240821, UPC CoA, Aylo v Dish - I
Request for discretionary review in the absence of leave to appeal (Rule 220(4) RoP). Parties cannot take procedural steps of their own motion (Rule 9(1) RoP; Rule 36 RoP). It follows from Rule 36 RoP that a reasoned request and authorisation by the judge is required. The written submissions provided for in R.220.4 of the Rules of Procedure are an application and, if the Permanent Judge hears the other party, a reply. Any further submissions must be authorised by the Standing Judge)

IPPT20240821, UPC CoA, Apple v Ona
Reply to Statement of response not taken into account. Further written pleadings may only be filed after a Rule 36 RoP request, filed before the closing of the interim procedure, has been granted (Rule 239 RoP). In appeal there is no provision for notification in accordance with Rule 35a RoP.

IPPT20240617, UPC CoA, Audi v NST

IPPT20240617, UPC CoA, Volkswagen v NST
Further exchange of written pleadings in appeal proceedings allowed  (Rule 36 RoP). The Court of Appeal considers the request by Audi to be sufficiently reasoned. It wants to correct some facts submitted by NST in relation to its behavior in the market, together with written evidence. The Court of Appeal considers that Audi has a sufficient interest to do so and that the written procedure is the most convenient phase to do so. The Court of Appeal therefore allows the request. There is no need to consult NST about this request. NST will be given the opportunity to respond to the additional statement lodged by Audi within 14 days after the day on which this order is issued. 

Court of First Instance

IPPT20240821, UPC CFI, LD Paris, HP v Lama France
All parts of the Rejoinder to the Reply to the Statement of defence of HP, except point 3 and related exhibits, excluded as inadmissible: not limited to a response to the matters raised in the Reply to the Statement of defence (Rule 29(c) RoP). If HPDC considered that new arguments on the infringement claim justified an additional exchange, it was up to it to request this from the Judge-Rapporteur by means of a reasoned request on Rule 36 RoP. It is clear from R 12 RoP that the Rules of Procedure have divided the written procedure into several successive streams. These flows, accompanied by strict deadlines, have been designed to ensure the most efficient and economical procedure possible before the UPC, in accordance with point 4 of the preamble. Full repetition of arguments does not help the court make better decisions. Full repetition of the arguments is superfluous, tends to increase the number of pages of the pleadings (to date more than 1,760 pages […]) which does not help the judges to give a decision of the highest quality as provided for in point 6 of the RoP preamble.