Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/1772

31.3.2025

(Case T-50/25)

(C/2025/1772)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KD (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—Declare that the European Union Intellectual Property Office has failed to adopt the necessary measures to implement: i) the judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2022, KD v EUIPO, T-298/20, EU:T:2022:671, as upheld by the Court of Justice’s judgment of 4 July 2024, EUIPO v KD, C-5/23 P, EU:C:2024:575; and ii) the judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023, KD v EUIPO, T-650/20, EU:T:2023:305, as upheld by the Court of Justice’s order of 11 April 2024, EUIPO v KD, C-528/23 P, EU:C:2024:311;

—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 a single plea in law, alleging that EUIPO has failed to comply with its obligation under Article 266 TFEU to adopt the necessary measures to implement i) the judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2022, KD v EUIPO, T-298/20, EU:T:2022:671, as upheld by the Court of Justice’s judgment of 4 July 2024, EUIPO v KD, C-5/23 P, EU:C:2024:575; and ii) the judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023, KD v EUIPO, T-650/20, EU:T:2023:305, as upheld by the Court of Justice’s order of 11 April 2024, EUIPO v KD, C-528/23 P, EU:C:2024:311.

—Since the General Court annulled the applicant’s 2019 appraisal report and EUIPO’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract, EUIPO had the obligation, pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, to adopt new acts to replace the annulled acts by taking into account the grounds of the concerned judgments. Concretely, after giving the applicant the opportunity to be heard, EUIPO should have adopted a revised appraisal report for 2019 and, on its basis, assess anew whether to reinstate the applicant.

—In that regard, the applicant argues that she formally invited EUIPO to act within a reasonable time. As regards the content of invitation to act, it derives from the correspondence between EUIPO and the applicant that EUIPO clearly understood that the applicant was seeking the implementation of the concerned judgments. In any event, the applicant explicitly claimed her reinstatement, as well as financial compensation for the damages suffered.

—To date, EUIPO has neither adopted a revised appraisal report for 2019 nor decided on the renewal of the applicant’s contract. Moreover, it has not defined its position with regard to the applicant’s invitation to act. Therefore, it has failed to respond altogether to this invitation to act.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1772/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—