Order;Abstract — ECLI:EU:T:2026:238
Date: 2026-03-25
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Procedure: Action for annulment;Action for damages

Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Action seeking compensation for loss caused by an EU institution – Lack of clarity as to the conduct alleged – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d) and 126) (see paragraphs 47, 50-52) Résumé In ruling that there is no need to adjudicate on the action for annulment, accompanied by a claim for damages, the General Court interprets, for the first time, Article 63(3) of Regulation 2018/1725 (1) which provides, inter alia, that, if the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) does not provide information on the progress of the complaint within three months, that complaint is deemed to be rejected. It also clarifies the relationship between, first, a plea of inadmissibility concerning an application for annulment against an implicit decision and, second, the decision that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for annulment against that implicit decision, on account of the adoption of an explicit decision. WS requested from the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) access to certain documents. (2) As EUIPO failed to acknowledge receipt of either that application or the subsequent confirmatory applications, WS requested that it be treated as a data breach. Following confirmation by EUIPO of the decision refusing access to the documents, WS lodged, on 25 November 2024, a complaint before the EDPS relating to the processing and breach of his data by EUIPO. Having considered an implicit rejection to have occurred because the EDPS had not informed him of the progress of his complaint, WS brought an action before the General Court on 2 March 2025. By his action, he sought, inter alia, the annulment of the implicit decision of the EDPS not to take further action on his complaint (‘the contested decision’). Subsequently, on 16 April 2025, the EDPS informed the applicant of his decision to close the file for the complaint, considering that that complaint did not fall within his mandate and that there were not sufficient grounds to open an investigation, since that complaint did not concern the processing of personal data. Findings of the Court In order to determine whether the subject matter of the application for annulment existed at the time that the action was brought, the Court begins by determining whether, in the present case, an implicit decision occurred on 26 February 2025. In that connection, it notes that, under Article 63(3) of Regulation 2018/1725, an implicit rejection decision occurs where two cumulative conditions are satisfied. First, the EDPS must not have informed the complainant of the outcome of the complaint within the three-month time limit. Secondly, the EDPS must not have informed the complainant of the progress of the complaint within the same time limit. The Court notes that, as regards the first condition, it is common ground between the parties that the EDPS did not inform the applicant of the outcome of the complaint within the three-month time limit which, in the present case, ran until 25 February 2025. That condition was therefore satisfied. As regards the second condition, the Court makes clear that the various pieces of information communicated by the EDPS to the applicant before 26 February 2025 cannot be classified as information on the progress of his complaint. The term ‘progress’ presupposes a certain genuine progression in the processing of the complaint. The information related to the loss – then recovery – of the complaint, and the mere communication of the case number and the statement that the complaint would be processed, do not reflect any genuine progression in the processing of a complaint and therefore do not preclude the occurrence of an implicit decision. Accordingly, the Court concludes that, at the time that the action was brought, the subject matter of the application for annulment existed. However, it notes that the subject matter of that application disappeared in the course of proceedings. In that connection, the Court observes that the adoption of the explicit decision of 16 April 2025 had the effect of withdrawing the implicit decision of 26 February 2025. The latter decision disappeared from the EU legal order and is no longer capable of being the subject of an application for annulment. Furthermore, it points out that the applicant did not modify the form of order sought following the adoption of the explicit decision to extend the subject matter of his application for annulment to include that decision. Therefore, the application for annulment is directed solely against the implicit rejection decision, which has, however, ceased to exist. The disappearance of the contested decision results in the loss of the subject matter of the application for annulment. The Court also states that the fact that the explicit decision confirmed the substance of the rejection of the complaint as expressed in the contested decision does not preclude the disappearance of that decision nor, accordingly, does it preclude the disappearance of the subject matter of the application for annulment. Consequently, the Court concludes that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of the contested decision. 1 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39). 2 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).