# C_2020262EN.01002901.xml

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/29

---

Action brought on 22 May 2020 — KD v EUIPO

(Case T-298/20)

(2020/C 262/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: KD (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 appraisal report regarding the period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019, adopted by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and notified to the applicant on 11 March 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appraisal report regarding the period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019, adopted by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and notified to the applicant on 11 March 2020;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 3 000 for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, as a result of the appraisal report; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 3 000 for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, as a result of the appraisal report;

| — | 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 three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons, because the appraisal report contains comments less favourable than those of the previous reports, without any justification, constituting thus a manifest error of fact, with the further consequence for the applicant of being deprived of the exercise of her rights of defence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons, because the appraisal report contains comments less favourable than those of the previous reports, without any justification, constituting thus a manifest error of fact, with the further consequence for the applicant of being deprived of the exercise of her rights of defence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care, by failing to consider the successful implementation of the various projects by the applicant, as well as her motivation and willingness to work, despite her family and health problems. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care, by failing to consider the successful implementation of the various projects by the applicant, as well as her motivation and willingness to work, despite her family and health problems.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, regarding the inconsistency between the comments and the rating and the failure to take into account all the applicable criteria.
  With regard to the claim for non-material damage, the applicant justifies this on the grounds of the creation of feelings of distress, anxiety and injustice as a result of the unlawfulness of the contested report. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, regarding the inconsistency between the comments and the rating and the failure to take into account all the applicable criteria.

With regard to the claim for non-material damage, the applicant justifies this on the grounds of the creation of feelings of distress, anxiety and injustice as a result of the unlawfulness of the contested report.

---