EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-650/20: Action brought on 23 October 2020 — NU v EUIPO

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0650

62020TN0650

October 23, 2020
With Google you find a lot.
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

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/58

(Case T-650/20)

(2021/C 19/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NU (represented by: S. Pappas and N. Kyriazopoulou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision dated 1 April 2020 of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) not to renew the applicant’s contract;

order compensation in the amount of EUR 20 000 (twenty thousand euros) for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, as a result of the decision not to renew her contract;

order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging lack of competence.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of an essential procedural requirement consisting in the failure to include in the dialogue prior to making the contested decision the appraisal report for 2019.

3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care, with regard to the failure of the administration to consider the health problems of the applicant, the appraisal report for 2019 and all the legal criteria for evaluating the performance of the applicant.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging unlawful reasoning and/or manifest error of assessment.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure, which did not lead to a proper review by the Appointing Authority of the decision of 15 July 2020.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia