Key takeaways
Art. 9(1) UPCA – no technically qualified judges required
Art. 9(1) UPCA must be interpreted such that if the subject matter of the appeal proceedings is of a non-technical nature only, and there are no technical issues at stake, the Court of Appeal may decide the matter without the need to assign two technically qualified judges to its panel of three legally qualified judges. This is without prejudice to the fact that once technically qualified judges have been assigned, they will, as judges, have to deal with the entire dispute, including the non-technical aspects thereof.
Rule 262.1(b) RoP – pleadings and evidence available to the public
When a request to make written pleadings and evidence available to a member of the public is made pursuant to R.262.1(b) RoP, the interests of a member of the public of getting access to the written pleadings and evidence must be weighed against the interests mentioned in Art. 45 UPCA. These interests include the protection of confidential information and personal data ('the interest of one of the parties or other affected persons') but are not limited thereto. The general interest of justice and public order also have to be taken into account. The general interest of justice includes the protection of the integrity of proceedings.
Rule 262.1(b) vs. 262.3 RoP
A reasoned request under R.262.1(b) RoP is not the same, and has to be distinguished from, an application under R.262.3 RoP.
A confidentiality request under R.262.2 RoP may lead to certain information being excluded from public access. If this is the case, the member of the public may subsequently file an application under R.262.3 RoP that such excluded information is also made available. R.262.4 RoP sets out what the application shall contain. It is then for the court (no longer the judge-rapporteur) to balance the interest of the member of the public in accessing the information (only) against the legitimate interest of the party inkeeping it confidential.
Division
Court of Appeal, Luxembourg
UPC number
UPC_CoA_404/2023
Type of proceedings
Appeal proceedings
Parties
Appellant : Ocado Innovation Limited
Respondent: Mr. (confidential)
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 262.1(b), 262.3 RoP, Art. 9(1), 45 UPCA
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.