Luxembourg Court of Appeal restates existing rules on time limits and appeal admissibility

In a decision dated 27 June 2024,¹ the Luxembourg Court of Appeal clarified the rules for calculating time limits for filing an appeal against a final judgment. The court also ruled on the admissibility of an appeal against an interlocutory judgment filed simultaneously with the final judgment. DLA Piper Luxembourg represented the appellants.

The appellate court had to determine the starting point of the appeal period for a party residing in another EU country. The opposing party argued that the time limit began when the Luxembourg bailiff sent the judgment to the Spanish authorities.

The appeal judges rejected this reasoning, referring to the “double date” principle included in Article 13 of EU Regulation 2020/1784.² According to this principle, the starting point for time limits varies depending on the status of the person concerned. For the sender, the date of sending the document, as determined by the law of their Member State, is retained. Conversely, for the recipient, the relevant date is when the notification was made in accordance with the applicable law in the requested Member State. This distinction, established for legal certainty, ensures the rights of both the notifying and notified parties. So in this case, the appellants’ appeal period began from the date on which the judgment was notified to them in accordance with Spanish procedural law. Under Spanish law, this means that the time limit starts to run from the date of actual delivery of the document to the appellants and not from the date it sent to the Spanish authorities, as claimed by the respondent. The court ruled that the appeal was admissible and filed within the time limit.

The appeal judges also distinguished the principle applicable to notifications to a party residing in a third country from that applicable to intra-EU notifications. They recalled that under Luxembourg private international law, serving an appeal document abroad triggers the time limits from the completion of the formalities provided by Luxembourg law. This means that notification is deemed to have been made on the day the copy of the document is handed over to the competent authority for dispatch, the day it is posted, or, generally, the day any other authorized procedure for service abroad is initiated.³

With regard to the appeal of an interlocutory judgment ordering expert measures along with the main judgment, the court clarified that only judgments deciding part of the merits can be immediately appealed. A judgment is considered mixed and resolving part of the merits if its decision is formally and explicitly stated in the operative part (dispositif). A mere reference in the reasoning is not sufficient, even if the expert’s mission might predict the judge’s future decision.

The court applied this reasoning to the interlocutory judgment ordering expert measures, ruling that it can only be appealed if it formally and explicitly decides part of the merits. So the court deemed the appeal against the interlocutory judgment admissible when filed simultaneously with the appeal against the main judgment.