UPC_CFI_1913/2026; UPC_CFI_3369/2026 – Valeo v SEG
- Court
- Local Division Paris
- Date
- Outcome
- Denied
- Sector
- Mechanics
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Jurisdiction Facts 1. The decision relates to an infringement action based on EP 4 128 486. 2. In their Statement of Defence, the defendants raised an objection of lack of jurisdiction of the Court to rule on the alleged infringement committed in Spain. 3. Valeo replies that the Court should accept jurisdiction for Spain under R. 19.7 RoP as the defendants failed to file a preliminary objection (R. 19.1 RoP). Order 1. The JR refers to the decision of the Court of appeal of 7 March 2026 (UPC-CoA-420/2025 in NUC v Hurom) in which the Court of appeal held that, based on the Brussels I-bis Regulation (No. 1215/2012), jurisdiction can be contested in the (first) Statement of Defence. 2. The Court therefore refuses the request to have the objection of competence declared inadmissible. Comment Did SEG’s representative fail to check the case law of the Court of Appeal? This interim request could have been avoided.
Key Holdings
- Under the Brussels I-bis Regulation (No. 1215/2012), jurisdiction can be contested directly in the first Statement of Defence.
- A preliminary objection under Rule 19.1 RoP is not mandatory to avoid the deemed acceptance of jurisdiction under Rule 19.7 RoP if jurisdiction is contested in the Statement of Defence.
- A request to declare a defendant's objection to jurisdiction inadmissible on the ground that it was not brought by preliminary objection is refused.
Tags
- Jurisdiction
- Brussels I-bis Regulation
- Statement of Defence