# C_2021019EN.01005801.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/58

---

Action brought on 23 October 2020 — NU v EUIPO

(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; |
| --- | --- |

—

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 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. |
| --- | --- |

—

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. |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

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.

---