Nanoval v ALD Vacuum (UPC_CFI_63/2025)

• This case confirmed the distinction between the length of the time limit and the starting point of the time limit under Rule 198.1 RoP (revocation of an order for preservation of evidence in the event of late initiation of the proceedings on the merits).
• The applicant (Nanoval) applied for measures to preserve evidence and an inspection (Rule 192 RoP et seq.). The court made the order without hearing the respondent (ALD Vacuum). As per Rule 198 RoP, the applicant has 31 calendar days or 20 working days (whichever is longer) from the date specified in the court's order to initiate proceedings on the merits.
• In the Munich LD's order on 3 February 2025, the court had specified the starting point of the time limit was to be 28 February 2025. This date, however, was based on the assumption that the court would receive the expert's report by 28 February 2025. The expert did not submit their report by this date and, in coordination with the court, the submission deadline was extended several times. The report was evidentially made available on the CMS on 18 March but the applicant's representatives were instructed to keep the report confidential from the applicant until the confidentiality requirements had been clarified. In the court's procedural order of 18 March 2025, the court noted that the start of the time limit was updated to run from the day on which the expert's report and the results of the inspection were made available to the applicant.
• The respondent approved a redacted version of the report on 31 March 2025 and the judge-rapporteur ordered the redacted version be made available to the applicant on 2 April 2025. The applicant went on to initiate proceedings on the merits on 3 May 2025.
• The respondent argued that the applicant did not file the main proceedings within the required timeframe, which it said ended on 31 March 2025, and it applied to revoke the order to preserve evidence under Rule 198 RoP. The court disagreed, finding the respondent's application for revocation unsuccessful.
• The court was clear that within the scope of Rule 198.1 RoP, there is a distinction between the length of the time limit and the starting point of the time limit. There is no judicial discretion to increase the length of the time limit (e.g. 40 calendar days instead of 31 calendar days), but the determination of the time limit starting point is at the court's discretion. This discretion includes a subsequent change of the starting point, which may be prompted by, for example, an expert's inspection report being submitted late.
• If the judge-rapporteur changes the starting point of the time limit under Rule 198.1 RoP, the procedural order can be submitted for review under Rule 333 RoP (review of case management orders). The application for review must be filed within 15 days, otherwise the order changing the stating point of the time limit becomes final.

This analysis is based on a machine translation of a decision not available in English.