Rule 229 – Examination as to formal requirements of the Statement of appeal

1. The Registry shall, as soon as practicable after the lodging of the Statement of appeal, examine whether the requirements of Rules 224.1, 225, 227 and 228 have been complied with.

2. If the appellant has not complied with the requirements referred to in Rules 225, 227 or 228, the Registry shall invite the appellant to:

(a) correct the deficiencies within 14 days of service of such notification; and

(b) where applicable, pay the fee for the appeal within said 14 days.

3. The Registry shall at the same time inform the appellant that if the appellant fails to correct the deficiencies or to pay the fee within the time stated, a decision by default may be given in accordance with Rule 357.

4. If the appellant has not met the requirements of Rules 225, 227 and 228 and fails to correct the deficiencies or pay the fee the Registry shall inform the President of the Court of Appeal who shall reject the appeal as inadmissible by a decision by default. He may give the appellant an opportunity to be heard beforehand.

5. If the appellant has not met the requirements of Rule 224.1, the Registry shall inform the President of the Court of Appeal who shall reject the appeal as inadmissible. He may give the appellant an opportunity to be heard beforehand.

Case Law:

IPPT20260416, UPC CoA, Belkin v Philips
Request for extension of time period for filing Statement of appeal which has not yet started rejected (R. 9.4 RoP, R. 224.1(a) RoP). It can be left open, whether it follows that after the time period for lodging the Statement of appeal has passed, deficiencies in the notice of appeal lodged within the deadline may be remedied only by means of a formal request pursuant to R. 229.2 RoP. This is because the time limit for lodging an appeal has not yet started in the present case. Time period for lodging a Statement of appeal begins to run only when the Court of First Instance (CFI) issues a decision including the reasons 

IPPT20250401, UPC CoA, NJOY v VMR
Appeal rejected as inadmissible by default decisions due to lack of payment of court fees (R. 229.4 RoP)