Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/4864

12.8.2024

(Case T-316/24)

(C/2024/4864)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EF (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 16 April 2024 to reject the applicant’s request for access to EUIPO’s Data Protection Impact Assessment regarding remotely held selection procedures during COVID-19, under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; (1)

—Order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached its obligation of complying with Article 2(1), Article 4(1)(a), first indent, Article 4(2), Article 4(6), and Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.

—The applicant backs his claim especially by submitting that the EUIPO failed to provide the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) invoking the exceptions of Article 4(1)(a), first indent (‘public security’), and Article 4(2), first indent (‘commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property’). The applicant argues that the EUIPO has not remotely demonstrated how the disclosure of the requested DPIA, related only to selection procedures carried out remotely in the time of COVID-19, thus from 2020 to maximum 2022, can undermine ‘public security’ and ‘commercial interests’.

—The applicant further submits that there was an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the requested DPIA, since securing transparency and equal opportunities in EU selection procedures – to maintain the high standards of the EU institutions and the public’s trust in the quality of the institutions’ work and decisions – are of strong public interest.

—Further, the applicant argues that the EUIPO disregarded Article 4(7) of Regulation 1049/2001. He submits that the DPIA regarding remotely held selection procedures during COVID-19 has not been in use at least since 2022 and, given the speed of technical development in this field, a period of 4 years after introduction and 2 years after cessation of use is more than sufficient for the considerations for exceptions invoked by EUIPO not to apply.

—Finally, the applicant submits that the EUIPO also disregarded Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001. He argues that EUIPO could and should have disclosed a redacted version of the document, since it is not at all perceivable why the disclosure of a redacted version would not take sufficient account of the considerations cited by EUIPO, which in the view of the EUIPO justify the invoked exceptions.

(1) Regulation 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4864/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—