# C_2019263EN.01002802.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/28

---

Appeal brought on 15 April 2019 by Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 February 2019 in Case T-709/18, Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos v Commission

(Case C-309/19 P)

(2019/C 263/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos (represented by: J. J. Azcárate Olano and E. Almarza Nantes, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the order under appeal in its entirety and, consequently, declare admissible the action for annulment brought by the appellant under Article 263 TFEU against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1214 of 29 August 2018 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Morcilla de Burgos’(PGI)) (1) in order, thereafter, moving on to the substance of the case, to give judgment declaring Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1214 of 29 August 2018 null and void, and order any party opposing that action to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is based on the irregularity of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union, which harms the appellant’s interests, stemming from an error of law in the form of an infringement of Article 73(1) and related provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and the case-law which interprets it, on the following legal grounds:

| — | The order under appeal incorrectly finds, in essence, that the application contained ‘only scanned signatures’ of the appellant’s representatives, when it in fact contained qualified electronic signatures, with a qualified certificate from the Autoridad de Certificatión de la Abogacíá (Advocacy Certification Authority, ‘ACA’), which have the equivalent legal effect of a handwritten signature. |
| --- | --- |

—

The order under appeal incorrectly finds, in essence, that the application contained ‘only scanned signatures’ of the appellant’s representatives, when it in fact contained qualified electronic signatures, with a qualified certificate from the Autoridad de Certificatión de la Abogacíá (Advocacy Certification Authority, ‘ACA’), which have the equivalent legal effect of a handwritten signature.

| — | Those qualified electronic signatures are recognised and provided for in Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014. (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

Those qualified electronic signatures are recognised and provided for in Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014. (2)

| — | Qualified electronic signatures with qualified ACA certificates are entirely consistent with the spirit and rationale of Article 73(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: ‘for reasons of legal certainty, to ensure the authenticity of the procedural document and to eliminate the risk that that document is not in fact the work of the author authorised for that purpose’, as recalled in the order under appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Qualified electronic signatures with qualified ACA certificates are entirely consistent with the spirit and rationale of Article 73(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: ‘for reasons of legal certainty, to ensure the authenticity of the procedural document and to eliminate the risk that that document is not in fact the work of the author authorised for that purpose’, as recalled in the order under appeal.

| — | Article 73(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court was repealed by Decision of the General Court of 11 July 2018, that change entering into force on 1 December 2018 (two days after the application was lodged), the application of the most favourable rule constituting a universal and fundamental principle in the law on penalties of western legal orders. |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 73(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court was repealed by Decision of the General Court of 11 July 2018, that change entering into force on 1 December 2018 (two days after the application was lodged), the application of the most favourable rule constituting a universal and fundamental principle in the law on penalties of western legal orders.

| — | The case-law referred to in the order under appeal to justify the inadmissibility of the action brought by the appellant primarily relates to scanned signatures. However, the specific case of the present proceedings (an application with a qualified electronic signature and ACA certification) has not been dealt with by the Courts of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

The case-law referred to in the order under appeal to justify the inadmissibility of the action brought by the appellant primarily relates to scanned signatures. However, the specific case of the present proceedings (an application with a qualified electronic signature and ACA certification) has not been dealt with by the Courts of the European Union.

| — | Rules must be interpreted in connection with the social context of the time when they have to be applied, having particular regard to their spirit and purpose. |
| --- | --- |

—

Rules must be interpreted in connection with the social context of the time when they have to be applied, having particular regard to their spirit and purpose.

---

(1)  OJ 2018 L 224, p. 3

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing 1999/93/EC (OJ 2014 L 257, p.73).

---