Esko-Software BV and Esko-Graphics BV v. In(k)control BV, UPC Court of Appeal, 8 October 2026, Case no. UPC-CoA-73/2026
At the Court of First Instance, Esko requested that the language of the proceedings be changed from Dutch to English, but the President of the CFI refused that request.
Esko appealed. Following the exchange of written pleadings between the parties and their unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issue amicably, In(k)control requested that the Court declare the appeal inadmissible on the grounds that the appeal request had not been signed with an advanced or qualified electronic signature. Alternatively, it requested that the Court dismiss the appeal.
The Court of Appeal holds that “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.”
This finding builds on the earlier SharkNinja v. SEB and Windhager v. bellissa decisions, which established that submitting documents in the CMS is not, on its own, sufficient.
Language change
Regarding the requested change of language, the Court of Appeal refers to the President’s discretionary authority and the case law of the Court of Appeal and concludes that the President’s decision was justified, taking into considerdation that the claimant is a small company, whereas the defendants form part of a large international group with substantial financial resources, that both parties are established in Flanders, where Dutch is the official language, and that none of the arguments put forward by the appellants undermine the justification for the President’s decision, including the fact that the requested measures also extend to countries outside the UPC, necessitating communication with foreign lawyers.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
A copy of the Order (in Dutch) can be read here.
