As discussed a while ago on this Blog here, the settlement discussion at the occasion of a main hearing is non-public at the FPC. I trust that this will not change any time soon, in view of a decision of the Supreme Court that has been published earlier this week (4A_179/2019 of 24 September 2019). In that case, an accredited court reporter of the Republik had been asked to leave the room for the settlement discussion at the end of a main hearing in proceedings at the Zurich labor court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court has now endorsed this exclusion of the public from the settlement discussion:
Die Bemühungen des Gerichts, zwischen den Parteien zu vermitteln, gelten nicht als Gerichtsverhandlung respektive Verhandlung und unterstehen nicht dem Grundsatz der Justizöffentlichkeit.
Now, what about instruction hearings according to Art. 226(2) CPC?
Maybe, the Supreme Court telegraphed a message by explicitly saying nothing (emphasis added):
Demgegenüber ist hier nicht zu beurteilen, ob es zulässig wäre, die Öffentlichkeit über die Vergleichsgespräche hinaus generell von Instruktionsverhandlungen auszuschliessen, zumal an solchen nach Art. 226 Abs. 2 ZPO unter anderem auch der Sachverhalt ergänzt und die Hauptverhandlung vorbereitet werden kann ([…]).
In English (emphasis added):
On the other hand, it is not necessary here to assess whether it would be permissible to generally exclude the public from instruction hearings beyond the settlement discussions, especially since, according to Art. 226 para. 2 CPC, the facts of the case can be supplemented and the main hearing can be prepared in the instruction hearings ([…]).
The FPC took note. Here is the FPC’s tweet of earlier today:
BGer vom 24. September 2019: Gericht darf Öffentlichkeit, inkl. Medien, von informellen Vergleichsgesprächen ausschliessen; offen gelassen, ob das auch für den formellen Teil der Instruktionsverhandlung gilt; https://t.co/3bkf7ZyXiT pic.twitter.com/0zi1jYGjNp
— SwissPatentCourt (@PatentCourt) October 15, 2019
Indeed, the Supreme Court did leave it undecided whether the public could also be excluded from the formal part of an instruction hearing. Still, the Supreme Court made it crystal clear that it does not want to see its judgement being read on instruction hearings in general, in view of what is (or maybe) going on in (the formal part of) an instruction hearing — contrary to mere settlement discussions, be it during a main hearing or an instruction hearing.
In my perception, that’s a somewhat deafening silence on this issue, isn’t it?
Reported by Martin WILMING
—
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Case No. 4A_179/2019 (Supreme Court) | Decision of 24 September 2019, on appeal against RA190002-O/U (High Court, Zurich) | Decision of 6 March 2019 (unpublished)
[accredited court reporter, Republik] | (Appellant) |
./. | |
Labour Court, Zurich | (Respondent) |
Panel of Judges:
-
- Dr. Christina KISS
-
- Dr. Kathrin KLETT
-
Dr. Fabienne HOHL
-
Dr. Martha NIQUILLE
-
Marie-Chantal MAY CANELLAS
Court Clerk:
-
- Dr. Christian KÖLZ
Representative(s) of Appellant:
-
- Marin FARNER (FWE)
Representative of Respondent:
-
- n/a
—
SUPREME COURT DECISION
BE ON THE KNOW