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-407/18: Action brought on 2 July 2018 — WP v EUIPO

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0407

62018TN0407

July 2, 2018
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

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/18

(Case T-407/18)

(2018/C 319/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WP (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

annul the decision of EUIPO of 6 October 2017 to refuse the second renewal of the applicant’s contract as a Temporary Agent pursuant to Art. 2 f) CEOS (Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the EU); 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 by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has infringed the principle of legality by infringing the relevant provisions of the SR (Staff Regulations of the Officials of the EU) and CEOS, namely Art. 56 CEOS and 110 SR, and that the contested decision lacks any other legal base.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has infringed the principle of legality, made a manifest error of assessment and breached its duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has breached the requirements of Regulation 45/2001 (1), especially of Article 27 sec. 1, sec. 2 (b) of Regulation 45/2001.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that by issuing the contested decision, EUIPO has breached the principle of equal treatment.

*

Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001, L 8, p. 1)

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