2026-09-15 - LD Brussels - In(k)control v. Esko-Graphics et al. - UPC-CFI-0000871/2026

Rule 296(3) of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) is to be understood as meaning that, following the resumption of proceedings that were previously stayed, the applicable procedural periods shall resume from the date of the order to resume proceedings, taking into account the periods that had already elapsed prior to the proceedings being stayed.

The Brussels Local Division (judge-rapporteur Granata) resumed infringement proceedings and ancillary security proceedings that had been stayed by consent under R. 295(d) RoP for settlement talks, and decided how R. 296.3 RoP operates on the running of procedural periods after a stay. Reading the second sentence ('time shall begin to run afresh') in the light of the first ('time shall cease to run'), and cross-checking the French ('recommencent à courir') and German ('erneut zu laufen') texts, the Court held that a stay suspends rather than interrupts a period: on resumption the period continues for the time that remained when the stay took effect, computed from the day after the resumption order under R. 300(a) RoP. It noted that Munich and Hamburg orders had let the full period run anew and that the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division had taken a flexible approach, and relied on the Court of Appeal's statement in Easee v Visibly that time limits are automatically suspended during a stay. The defendants, who had 29 days left when the stay began, must file their statement of defence and any counterclaim by 2 October 2026; a longer period remains available only on an R. 9.3 RoP application. The headnote records the rule.