2026-10-08 - CoA - Esko-Graphics et al. v. In(k)control - UPC-COA-0000073/2026

In R. 4.1 RoP wordt in algemene zin bepaald dat de in te dienen stukken moeten worden ondertekend (“shall be signed” resp. “sind zu unterzeichnen” en “doivent être signés”) en dat deze in elektronische vorm moeten worden ingediend. Hierbij wordt niet als voorwaarde gesteld dat de handtekening een gekwalificeerde of geavanceerde elektronische andtekening moet zijn. Een dergelijke eis volgt evenmin uit de overige bepalingen van de RoP, de UPCA of de rechtspraak van het Hof van Beroep. (Engels) R. 4.1 RoP generally provides that the documents to be filed must be signed (“shall be signed”, “sind zu unterzeichnen” and “doivent être signés”) and that these must be lodged in electronic form. This does not require that the signature be in the form of a qualified or advanced electronic signature. Nor does such a requirement follow from the other provisions of the RoP, the UPCA or the case law of the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that R. 4.1 RoP requires written pleadings to be signed and lodged electronically, but does not require a qualified or advanced electronic signature; neither the RoP, the UPCA, the Court's own case law nor the eIDAS Regulation imposes one. A statement of appeal carrying scanned handwritten signatures of the appellants' counsel, one of whom is the representative registered in the CMS, therefore satisfies R. 4.1 and R. 224 RoP, and the Court examines that question of its own motion, whatever the timing of the respondent's objection. On the merits, the Court confirmed that review of an Art. 49(5) UPCA language decision is limited to failure to exercise, misuse or exceeding of the President's discretion. It upheld the President's refusal to change the language from Dutch to English: all parties are seated in Flanders and the claimant is a small enterprise facing a far larger group, and the English grant language, English exhibits and correspondence, English as the field's working language, and relief sought for non-UPC states did not make Dutch unfair. No costs order was made because the order does not end the proceedings.