- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-787/16: Action brought on 11 November 2016 — QD v EUIPO
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0787
62016TN0787
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
23.1.2017
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 22/40
(Case T-787/16)
(2017/C 022/55)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: QD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decision of EUIPO of 4 March 2016 not to adopt a definitive decision regarding the applicant’s request of 19 January 2016 for a second renewal of her contract concluded under Art. 2(f) CEOS and to defer a definitive decision about the applicant’s request of 19 January 2016 for a second renewal of her contract concluded under Art. 2(f) CEOS to a ‘specific procedure’ in the future; and
—order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO has infringed the relevant provisions of the SR and CEOS, namely Art. 90(1) SR (in connection with Art. 46 CEOS), Annex III to the SR, Art. 2, 8, 53, CEOS, 110 SR;
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached its fiduciary duty;
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached the principle of sound administration (Art. 41 (1), Art. 41 (2)(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO committed a misuse of power.