Claimant obtained an EPO against the defendant. A statement of opposition was lodged within the prescribed time limit (Art. 16 EPO), after which the case was referred and continued before the Dutch court, using national civil procedural law.
The defendant did not appear in the present case and the claimant requests a verdict.
The court ascertained whether it had jurisdiction based on Art. 5 Brussels I. The court proceeds to answer the question which law is applicable by applying Art. 4(2) Rome I Regulataion. Because the defining characteristic performance is the sale and delivery of goods by the Dutch claimant, Dutch law is applicable to the proceedings.
Claimant did not serve the documents in a language understandable to the defendant and thus did not fulfill the requirements contained in the relevant Dutch national civil procedural law provisions. Additionally, because the claimant did not supply the court with form A (Art. 7(1) EPO), its claims were not sufficiently clear to the court.
The court ordered the claimant to further specify its claims.
The court ordered the claimant to serve the bailiff’s notification to the defendant in accordance to the requirements by national civil procedural law.
The court stays further decision.