No more than 3 pages A Belgian company established in Belgium ("BE") entered into a contract with a UAE company established in Dubai ("DU"). They concluded an agreement appointing DU as BE's exclusive concession-holder in UAE for the distribution of children's articles. Under art.18 of the concession agreement, the agreement was to be governed by UAE law and the courts in Brussels (Belgium) had jurisdiction to hear any disputes that might arise between the parties. The contract was written in English. BE terminated the agreement prematurely. BE brought an action before the Brussels Commercial Court in Belgium seeking an order requiring DU to pay to it a sum of approximately EUR 300.000 in settlement of various invoices that had not been paid. DU lodged a counterclaim seeking an order that BE should pay a sum of EUR 150.000 euros in compensation for the wrongful termination of their concession agreement. DU disputed BE's claim, contending that the invoices at issue in the main proceedings were null and void on the ground that the Law on the use of languages and the Decree on the use of languages (together, 'the legislation at issue in the main proceedings' named LAW LANGUAGE), the invoices fail to comply with the public policy rules contained in that legislation, all the details on the invoices, including the general terms and conditions, were set out in a language other than Dutch, namely in English, even though BE is established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium. Indeed the legislation of a federal entity of the Flemish Community in the Federal State of Belgium, requires every undertaking which has its place of establishment within the territory of that entity to draw up, pursuant to Article X1 of the [Law on the use of languages] in conjunction with Article Y1 of the [Decree on the use of languages], cross-border and international invoices exclusively in the official language of that federal entity : if not, those invoices are to be declared by the national courts of their own motion to be null and void In the course of the proceedings, BE supplied to DU a translation into Dutch of the invoices concerned. It is apparent, however, from the file before the Court that the invoices are, and remain, in their entirety null and void under the legislation at issue in the main proceedings. 1.What arguments can both sides give and what could be the position of the Brussels court? 2.What would you think could be the position of the UAE Court if it had jurisdiction on this issue?