UPC CoA 73/2026

Vor dem UPC: Esko-Graphics BV (2 Verfahren)·In(k)control BV (2 Verfahren)

• 2026-10-08
  AppealÖffentlich

  Zusammenfassung: The Court of Appeal held that R. 4.1 RoP does not require a qualified or advanced electronic signature, so Esko's appeal was admissible, but dismissed it on the merits: the Brussels LD President had not exceeded her discretion in refusing to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English (all parties Flemish, the claimant a small enterprise). No costs order, as the order does not end the proceedings.

  Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)

  • R. 4.1 RoP signature requirement does not demand a qualified or advanced electronic signature
  • Change of language of proceedings under Art. 49(5) UPCA / R. 323 RoP: limited appellate review of the President's discretion
  • Relative size of parties and their domicile in the Dutch-speaking region weigh against a change to English