Article 41

Print this page

Rules of Procedure

1.   The Rules of Procedure shall lay down the details of the proceedings before the Court. They shall comply with this Agreement and the Statute.


2.   The Rules of Procedure shall be adopted by the Administrative Committee on the basis of broad consultations with stakeholders. The prior opinion of the European Commission on the compatibility of the Rules of Procedure with Union law shall be requested.

The Rules of Procedure may be amended by a decision of the Administrative Committee, on the basis of a proposal from the Court and after consultation with the European Commission. However, such amendments shall not contradict or alter this Agreement or the Statute.


3.   The Rules of Procedure shall guarantee that the decisions of the Court are of the highest quality and that proceedings are organised in the most efficient and cost effective manner. They shall ensure a fair balance between the legitimate interests of all parties. They shall provide for the required level of discretion of judges without impairing the predictability of proceedings for the parties.


Case Law:


Court of Appeal


IPPT20240226, UPC CoA, Nanostring v 10x Genomics
Stay of proceedings because of insolvency not justified (Article 41(3) UPCA, Rule 311(1) RoP). Party is declared insolvent only after the conclusion of the oral proceedings and the legal dispute is ready for decision. At this stage of the proceedings, the parties have already taken all procedural steps and all costs have already been incurred by the parties. If the decision or order affects the bankruptcy estate, it does not differ from the effect that a decision or order issued before the declaration of bankruptcy would have had. Furthermore, the interest in a timely order weighs particularly heavily in proceedings for interim relief, as is the case here. Furthermore, it leads to a fair balance between the legitimate interests of the parties if events that only occurred after the conclusion of the oral hearing are no longer to be taken into account in the decision-making process. Confirmed by comparable provisions in the national civil procedural law of several contracting member states of the Convention. 


Court of First Instance


IPPT20240508, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Volkswagen et al. v NST
Sound reasons of case management efficiency for preliminary objections of lack of jurisdiction raised by the Defendants to be deferred to a later stage of the proceeding (Rule 20.2 RoP, Article 41.3 UPCA). The exceptions are related to the claim for damages for Defendants’ activities in the territory of the United Kingdom or, more broadly and generally, to the entire claims for damages moved against TI.