Official Journal of the European Union

EN

Series C

C/2023/218

(Case T-435/23)

(C/2023/218)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: YL (represented by: A. Guillerme and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decisions made by the EUIPO Management Board on 22 November 2022 not to submit to the Council of the European Union a proposal to extend his term of office and to launch the selection procedure for his position;

—annul the decision made by the EUIPO Management Board on 6 March 2023 to temporarily suspend the applicant’s powers as authority empowered to conclude employment contracts, until the end of his term of office, and to limit his power to ‘daily business management for the functioning of the Office’;

—annul the decision of the Council of the European Union of 30 May 2023 not to extend the applicant’s term of office;

—order the EUIPO and the Council to pay a compensation for the material and moral harm suffered by the applicant due to the contested decisions;

—order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging the illegality of the decisions of the EUIPO Management Board of 22 November 2022 and of the Council of 30 May 2023, in that:

—the contested decisions are vitiated by procedural flaws, namely the incompetence of the author of the act and the infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard, which rendered illegal the procedure set out under Article 158 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) leading to the non-extension of the applicant’s term of office;

—the EUIPO Management Board and the Council committed manifest errors of assessment when adopting the contested decisions;

—the EUIPO Management Board and the Council infringed the principles of legitimate expectations and non-discrimination.

2.Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the contested decision of the EUIPO Management Board of 6 March 2023, in that the decision to suspend the applicant’s powers:

—violates his right to be heard;

—infringes Article 157 of Regulation 2017/1001; and

—breaches Article 4 of the EUIPO Management Board’s Decision MB-17-01 delegating the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations on the appointing authority, as well as the principles of proportionality and sound administration.

3.Third plea in law, alleging the material and moral harm suffered by the applicant due the contested decisions, for which he requests a financial compensation corresponding respectively to the certain loss of opportunity to have his term of office extended until his retirement and to the damage caused to his image and reputation.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (codification) (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/218/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)