Facts
The case concerns a dispute between the appellant A. GmbH and the respondent B. S.A. in summary proceedings. The appellant argues that the lower court wrongly considered the "reply" of the respondent, as only one exchange of written submissions is required in summary proceedings.
The Federal Court had to assess whether the lower court rightly allowed a second exchange of written submissions or if the close of the file had to occur after the first exchange.
Considerations
The Federal Court states that according to Art. 253 CPC, in summary proceedings, only one exchange of written submissions is generally provided for. However, the court can, in exceptional cases, order a second exchange of written submissions if it proves necessary.
Furthermore, the parties have the right, based on Art. 6 ECHR and Art. 29 FC, to take a position on any submission by the opposing party or the lower court, regardless of whether it contains new and significant aspects. The lower court has observed this principle by not dismissing the "reply" of the respondent.
The Federal Court further states that in summary proceedings, the parties do not have a general right to a second exchange of written submissions. The close of the file occurs after a single submission. Exceptionally, however, if the proceedings…