The mandatory right to be heard, again and again(?)

Case No. O2013_004 ¦ Decision of 15 August 2013 ¦ “Auszug aus dem Entscheid des Präsidenten des Bundespatentgerichts vom 15. August 2013”

HEADNOTE

Art. 6 EMRK; Art. 29(1) and (2) BV:
The parties may be summoned to a hearing to safeguard their mandatory right to be heard and in order to expedite the proceedings.
(Non-official translation from German into English language)

As outlined in an earlier post, parties have a mandatory right to be heard (“unbedingtes Replikrecht”); no time limit needs to be set by the Court, but one has to act quickly (cf. BGE 138 III 252, r. 2.2; BGE 133 I 98, r. 2.2 and a memorandum of the Supreme Court).

But what does that mean in pratice? Can an exchange of replies based on the mandatory right to be heard go on for ever? It can be difficult for a court to come up with a decision when parties don’t stop writing.

In the present matter, the defendant had accepted the plaintiff’s claim on 26 June 2013. The plaintiff filed a submission on 22 July 2013 (inter alia pertaining to the costs). The defendant replied on 09 August 2013. The FPC now took a pragmatic approach to effectively take such a series of replies to an end: The plaintiff was obliged to indicate by no later than 29 August 2013 whether it is intended to again reply. If so, the parties would be summoned to an oral hearing in order to conclude the exchange of positions.

Reported by Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2013_004 ¦ Decision of 15 August 2013 ¦ “Auszug aus dem Entscheid des Präsidenten des Bundespatentgerichts vom 15. August 2013”

(not identified) ./. (not identified)

Subject(s):

  • (not identified)

Composition of the Board of the FPC:

  • Dr. Dieter BRÄNDLE (President)

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

  • (not identified)

Representative(s) of Defendant:

  • (not identified)

Full text of the decision right here:

Download (PDF, 11KB)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.