Rule 109 – Simultaneous interpretation during oral hearings

1. At the latest one month before the oral hearing including any separate hearing of witnesses and experts a party may lodge a Request for simultaneous interpretation which shall contain:

(a) an indication of the language to or from which the party requests simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing;

(b) the reasons for the Request;

(c) the field of technology concerned;

(d) any other information of relevance for the Request.

2. The judge-rapporteur shall decide whether and to what extent simultaneous interpretation is appropriate and shall instruct the Registry to make all necessary arrangements for simultaneous interpretation. In the event that the judge-rapporteur refuses to order simultaneous interpretation the parties may request arrangements to be made, so far as practically possible, for simultaneous interpretation at their cost.

3. The judge-rapporteur may decide of his own motion to order simultaneous interpretation and shall instruct the Registry and inform the parties accordingly.

4. A party wishing to engage an interpreter at its own expense shall inform the Registry at the latest two weeks before the oral hearing.

5. Costs for simultaneous interpretation are costs of the proceedings to be decided upon under Rule 150 except where a party engages an interpreter at its own expense under paragraph 4; these costs are borne solely by that party.

Relation with Agreement: Article 51(2)

Case Law

IPPT20240625, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Amycel
Simultaneous interpretation during the oral hearing  into Polish allowed, but to be decided later whether the costs thereof shall become costs of the proceedings (Article 51 UPCA, Rule 109 RoP, Rule 150 RoP). Rule 109 RoP includes a double/twofold ‘appropriateness-test’, in the sense that it is to be decided (i) whether allowing translations during the oral hearing is appropriate and (ii) whether it is appropriate that the costs of such interpretation shall become costs of the proceedings. Simultaneous interpretation will in general already be appropriate if the language of the proceedings is not a language that is sufficiently familiar to (one of) the parties or to their counsel. The threshold for allowing interpretation as such is therefore low for R. 109.1-requests. For R. 109.4-requests the threshold seems even lower: for self-paid translations the only restriction seems to be whether it is practically possible (R. 109.2 second sentence). Generally it cannot reasonably be expected that the UPC provides translations to all languages, even if these have no relationship at all with the UPC or with one or more Contracting Member States. It seems reasonable to interpret R. 109.5 in such a way that it does not prevent the Defendant from submitting the costs incurred for interpretation for recovery as costs of the proceedings at a later point in the proceedings, if facts and/or circumstances are established that make it unreasonable for Defendant to bear these costs. 

IPPT20240510, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Cead v Bego
Request for simultaneous interpretations (Rule 109(1) RoP) rejected. The interests of the applicants are represented by three German-speaking representatives. In the course of the proceedings to date, they have made extensive submissions in German without the court becoming aware of any communication problems. The fact that the fourth legal representative does not speak German does not alter this assessment. Applicants' counsel is permitted to conduct the interim hearing and the oral hearing in English, optionally in Dutch, with simultaneous interpretation into German at their expense (Rule 109(2) RoP).

IPPT20240322, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Party engaged interpreter (Article 51(2) UPCA, Rule 109(4)RoP). The aim of simultaneous interpreting is to enable parties who do not speak the language of the proceedings, or do not speak it well enough, to actively participate in the oral proceedings. The interpretation can be provided both into and from the language of the proceedings (see R. 109.1 VerfO). It is obvious that this must be the case. Only such simultaneous interpreting in both directions ensures that the person concerned understands the statements in the language of the proceedings (translation from the language of the proceedings) and can also articulate themselves if necessary (translation into the language of the proceedings). Insofar as the applicant nevertheless wants to force all parties on the defendant's side to attend a hearing in German, such an order would therefore run counter to the purpose of simultaneous interpreting and thus ultimately also to Art. 51 (2) UPCA. 

IPPT20240301, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience
Request for simultaneous interpretation during oral hearings rejected (Rule 109 RoP).. Applicant opted for German language proceedings and objected to application to change the language of the proceedings to English. If request for simultaneous interpretation is rejected, the parties shall, as a rule, be authorised to engage a simultaneous interpreter at their own expense upon their timely request.