- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
1. Key takeaways
Request for simultaneous interpretation pursuant to Rule 109.2 RoP must be justified
In the absence of any consent by the Court to hear witnesses or experts at an oral hearing in a language other than the language of the proceedings, and absent any interpretation need for the judges, a request for a court-arranged simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing pursuant to R. 109.2 RoP must be justified by the requesting party.
The fact that the defendant is based in a country where the language of proceedings is not an official language does not make it appropriate to order a court-arranged simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing pursuant to R. 109.2 RoP. The same applies to the fact that persons employed by a party will have considerable difficulties in following the oral submissions and the communications during the oral hearing. The parties are represented by their representatives who are familiar with the language of proceedings and the presence of company officials at the oral hearing is voluntary.
Instead, the party can engage an interpreter at its own expense pursuant to Rule 109.4 RoP, provided that it informs the Registry at the latest two weeks before the oral hearing.
2. Division
CoA Luxembourg
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_317/2025; UPC_CoA_376/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Appeal proceedings
5. Parties
Appelant/Applicant: Barco N.V.
Respondent/Defendants: Yeahlink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yeahlink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 732 827
7. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 109 RoP
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.
