OERLIKON TEXTILE v Himson Engineering (CFI, 13 June 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By procedural order of 13 June 2023 (proceedings no. 498862/2023), the standing judge of the Milan Local Division declined to decide herself the application to preserve evidence, presented as extremely urgent, filed by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG against Himson Engineering Private Limited under EP 2 145 848 in connection with a trade fair in Milan. She referred the case to the presiding judge of the Division. The order clarifies the threshold for the standing judge to act: extreme urgency means that the ordinary panel can no longer decide in time.

Question

Does an application filed in the afternoon of 12 June 2023, for a trade fair ending on 14 June, show the extreme urgency that allows the standing judge to decide immediately?

Decision

The applicant relied on the fair closing on 14 June. The judge noted that the application had been filed in the afternoon of 12 June and that a decision could still be given before the fair ended: extreme urgency was not established. The application therefore had to be examined by the presiding judge of the Milan Local Division under Rule 194.3 RoP, and the Registry was instructed to forward the proceedings. The order also recalls that the court fee must be paid within two days of registration (Rule 371.3 RoP), payment not yet having been confirmed. The reasons are not numbered.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: the standing judge steps in only if the ordinary panel can no longer decide in time, an application filed two days before a fair closes is sent to the presiding judge, who can still rule before the end of the fair.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 194.3, 194.4, 345.5 and 371.3

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.