Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union.
Date: 2015-05-05
31. In accordance with the Court’s case-law, references in the Treaties to the use of languages within the European Union cannot be regarded as evidencing a general principle of EU law to the effect that anything that might affect the interests of a European Union citizen should be drawn up in his language in all circumstances (the judgments in Kik  v OHIM , C‑361/01 P, EU:C:2003:434, paragraph 82, and Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa , C‑410/09, EU:C:2011:294, paragraph 38).
33. In so far as a legitimate objective of general interest may be relied upon and be shown to be genuine, it should be noted that a difference in treatment on the grounds of language must also observe the principle of proportionality, that is to say, it must be appropriate for attaining the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it (see the judgment in Italy  v Commission , C‑566/10 P, EU:C:2012:752, paragraph 93).
35. The legitimacy of such an objective cannot be denied. One of the choices facing an inventor when planning to obtain protection for his invention by the grant of a patent concerns the territorial scope of the desired protection, which will be decided after an overall assessment of the advantages and drawbacks of each option, which includes complex economic evaluations of the commercial interest of having protection in the various States compared with the sum of the costs entailed in obtaining the grant of a patent in those States, including translation costs (see, to that effect, BASF , C‑44/98, EU:C:1999:440, paragraph 18).
41. In that regard, the Court emphasised, in paragraph 92 of the judgment in Kik  v OHIM  (C‑361/01 P, EU:C:2003:434), that the necessary balance must be maintained between the interests of economic operators and the public interest in terms of the cost of proceedings, and also between the interests of applicants for intellectual property rights and those of other economic operators in regard to access to translations of texts which confer rights, or proceedings involving more than one economic operator.
42. As regards, first, maintaining the balance between the interests of economic operators and the public interest as regards the cost of the procedure for recognition of the unitary effect of the European patent, it must be observed that while the Union is committed to the preservation of multilingualism, the importance of which is stated in the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) TEU and in Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it has been stated, in paragraph 36 of this judgment, that the high costs attached to the issue of a European patent covering the territory of all Member States constitute an obstacle to patent protection within the European Union, and consequently it was essential that the translation arrangements for the EPUE should be demonstrably cost-effective.
68. According to settled case-law, the choice of the legal basis for a European Union measure must rest on objective factors amenable to judicial review, which include in particular the aim and the content of the measure (the judgments in Commission  v Council , C‑377/12, EU:C:2014:1903, paragraph 34 and case-law cited, and United Kingdom  v Council , C‑81/13, EU:C:2014:2449, paragraph 35).
79. In accordance with settled case-law, the principle of legal certainty requires that rules of law be clear and precise and predictable in their effect, so that interested parties can ascertain their position in situations and legal relationships governed by EU law (see the judgments in France Télécom  v Commission , C‑81/10 P, EU:C:2011:811, paragraph 100 and case-law cited, and LVK — 56 , C‑643/11, EU:C:2013:55, paragraph 51).
94. In accordance with the Court’s case-law, the direct application of a regulation, laid down in the second paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, means that its entry into force and its application in favour of or against those subject to it are independent of any measure of reception into national law, unless the regulation in question leaves it to the Member States themselves to adopt the necessary legislative, regulatory, administrative and financial measures to ensure the effective application of the provisions of that regulation (see the judgments in Bussone , 31/78, EU:C:1978:217, paragraph 32, and ANAFE , C‑606/10, EU:C:2012:348, paragraph 72 and case-law cited).