Article 51

Other language arrangements

1.   Any panel of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal may, to the extent deemed appropriate, dispense with translation requirements.
2.   At the request of one of the parties, and to the extent deemed appropriate, any division of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal shall provide interpretation facilities to assist the parties concerned at oral proceedings.
 3.   Notwithstanding Article 49(6), in cases where an action for infringement is brought before the central division, a defendant having its residence, principal place of business or place of business in a Member State shall have the right to obtain, upon request, translations of relevant documents in the language of the Member State of residence, principal place of business or, in the absence of residence or principal place of business, place of business, in the following circumstances:

(a) jurisdiction is entrusted to the central division in accordance with Article 33(1) third or fourth subparagraph, and

(b) the language of proceedings at the central division is a language which is not an official language of the Member State where the defendant has its residence, principal place of business or, in the absence of residence or principal place of business, place of business, and

(c) the defendant does not have proper knowledge of the language of the proceedings.

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. 

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.