CoA, May 15, 2026, order on request for use of English at oral hearing, UPC-CoA-50/2026

The appellants’ representative understood French but lacked sufficient oral proficiency for optimal representation. The Court permitted both parties to plead in English at the hearing of 26 May 2026, while French remained the language of proceedings. The possibility of hiring an interpreter under R. 109.4 RoP was considered but deemed less effective than direct oral advocacy in English.

The respondent (Valeo) agreed with the appellants’ primary request to hold the hearing entirely in English and asked the Court to order exactly that. Since both parties were aligned, the Court granted the primary request and found it unnecessary to rule on the subsidiary request (allowing only the appellants’ representative to plead in English while the hearing otherwise remained in French).

The Court relied on the principle that procedural rules must be applied in a “flexible and balanced manner” to organize proceedings “in the most efficient and cost-effective way” (RoP, Preamble, para. 4), and that justice and equity require consideration of all parties’ legitimate interests (RoP, Preamble, para. 5). These principles were treated as the primary legal foundation for the order. 

The Court expressly referred to its own procedural order of 3 April 2026 in joined cases UPC_CoA_004/2026 and UPC_CoA_013/2026, involving the same parties (Robert Bosch v Valeo), where the hearing had likewise been conducted in English. This prior decision was cited as a factor justifying the same outcome in the present case.

The defendants raised a preliminary objection under R. 19 RoP before the Paris Local Division challenging jurisdiction and the language of proceedings. The Judge-Rapporteur rejected it (order of 17 February 2026). The panel confirmed the rejection on review but granted leave to appeal (order of 23 March 2026), enabling the defendants to bring the matter before the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_50/2026).