European Union: Trials & Appeals & Compensation

Rule 296.3 RoP is to be understood to mean that, after stayed proceedings are resumed, the applicable time limits continue to run from the date of the order resuming the proceedings, taking into account the time limits that had already expired prior to the stay of the proceedings.

An order to preserve evidence pursuant to Art. 60 UPCA also allows for the seizure of promotional and commercial documents (potentially) proving infringing activities and is not limited to documents concerning the technical details of the product or process in question.

The mechanism of the preliminary reference stands as one of the cornerstones of European Union law. It establishes a channel of judicial cooperation between the national courts of Member States and the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU"), ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of EU law across all Member States. Understanding this mechanism, and in particular the conditions under which a Cypriot court may invoke it, is of considerable practical importance for any party appearing in proceedings that raise a question of EU law.

A Cyprus Court of Appeal judgment provides crucial guidance on recognizing English court judgments in Cyprus, examining third-party litigation funding arrangements, and clarifying when recognition may be refused on public policy grounds. The decision addresses the narrow grounds for challenging foreign judgment recognition and confirms that properly structured litigation funding does not violate Cyprus public policy.

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court examines the stringent requirements for granting suspensive effect under Article 74(1) UPCA and Rule 223.2 RoP in patent litigation. This decision clarifies when an applicant's interest in maintaining the status quo during an appeal can exceptionally outweigh the respondent's interests in cost proceedings related to revocation actions.

Mr. Justice Sheehan in Cork Circuit court on the 24 July 2026 dismissed the claim, the Plaintiff had pleaded that he had been thrown off his bicycle by a lump of tarmacadam deposited on the roadway by Cork County Council

Following execution of the inspection, the court-appointed expert prepared a detailed written description of the findings, which was uploaded to the CMS by the Sub-Registry. This description constitutes the central documentary evidence from the inspection measure and triggers the disclosure procedure governed by Art. 60(8) UPCA, R. 198(1) and R. 199(2) RoP.

The Court dismissed Claimant’s request for the production of documents under R. 190 RoP as Claimant failed to identify which facts it seeks to prove, did not identify by which means of evidence and did not explain for what purpose, i.e. the necessity of such evidence.

An application for a cost decision must always be filed with the CFI even if the costs arise exclusively from appeal proceedings