26.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/30

(Case T-38/23)

(2023/C 223/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IB (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of 11 April 2022 of the Director of the Human Resources Department of EUIPO enforcing the judgment in Case T-22/20 of 13 October 2021 pursuant to Article 266 TFEU and refusing to recommence the invalidity procedure in respect of the applicant;

—in so far as necessary, in so far as it is considered to provide additional information, annul the decision of 2 November 2022 rejecting the complaint lodged on 8 July 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

—appoint a third doctor of its own motion;

—at the very least, order the defendant to:

—recommence the invalidity procedure at the stage of appointing an invalidity committee;

—in the meantime and pending a final decision on the applicant’s invalidity, pay him the minimum amount guaranteed under Article 9(4) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations plus family allowances and interest calculated at the rate set by the ECB increased by two percentage points;

—retroactively register the applicant with the JSIS;

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging incorrect enforcement by the administration of the judgment of 13 October 2021 in breach of Article 266 TFEU, the prohibition of double punishment within the meaning of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and an error of law.

2.Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care, breach of the right to human dignity, failure to state provide a sufficient statement of reasons to understand the special service interest, breach of the administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of its officials and former officials.

3.Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the examination of the procedure, in the assessment of the role of the appointing authority and of the invalidity committee and of the division of powers between them, contradictions in the statement of reasons and breach of the duty of sound administration.