Cases T‑435/23 and T‑224/24
YL
v
Council of the European Union and European Union Intellectual Property Office
Judgment of the General Court (Intermediate Chamber) of 10 September 2025
( Civil service – Members of the temporary staff – Decision of the Management Board of EUIPO not to submit to the Council a proposal for extension of the applicant’s term of office – Decision of the Council not to extend the applicant’s term of office – Right to be heard – Obligation to state reasons – Manifest error of assessment – Liability )
1.      Actions brought by officials – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Dispute which has its origin in the employment relationship between the official and the institution concerned – Non-extension of the term of office of the Executive Director of the European Union Intellectual Property Office – Suspension of some of his delegated powers as Executive Director – Admissibility
(Arts 270 and 340 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 143(1), 153(1)(h) and (2) and 158(1) and (3))
(see paragraphs 52-62, 66, 67)
2.      Actions brought by officials – Admissibility criteria – Compliance with the prior administrative procedure
(Art. 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91(2))
(see paragraphs 68-76)
3.      Actions brought by officials – Act adversely affecting a person – Definition – Decision of the Management Board of the European Union Intellectual Property Office not to propose the renewal of the term of office of the Executive Director of the Office – Preparatory act – Not included
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 158(3) and (4))
(see paragraphs 83-90)
4.      Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Recruitment – Non-renewal of the term of office of the Executive Director of the European Union Intellectual Property Office – Right of the person concerned to be heard – Scope – Breach – Consequences
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a))
(see paragraphs 105-123)
5.      Actions brought by officials – Act adversely affecting a person – Definition – Acts producing binding legal effects – Decision to suspend the delegation to the Executive Director of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of the powers of appointing authority – Included
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91(1))
(see paragraphs 130-132)
6.      Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Concept – Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant – Interest having to subsist until the delivery of the court decision – Act in dispute having ceased to produce legal effects with regard to the applicant – Claims for compensation partially based on the illegality of the act in dispute – Interest in bringing proceedings retained
(Art. 263 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 135-137)
7.      Officials – Organisation of departments – Suspension of the delegation to the Executive Director of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of the powers of appointing authority – Conditions – Exceptional circumstances – Administration’s discretion – Judicial review – Limits
(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 153(2))
(see paragraphs 145-161)
8.      Officials – Decision adversely affecting a person – Suspension of the delegation to the Executive Director of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of the powers of appointing authority – Obligation to state reasons – Remedying of insufficient reasoning during the contentious procedure – Conditions – Exceptional circumstances
(Art. 296, second para., TFEU)
(see paragraphs 163-170)
9.      Actions brought by officials – Claim for compensation for damage caused by conduct that does not constitute a decision – No pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations – Inadmissibility
(Art. 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)
(see paragraphs 176, 177, 179, 184-186, 190, 206)
10.    Actions brought by officials – Actions for damages – Annulment of the illegal act in dispute – Whether appropriate reparation for non-material damage
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91)
(see paragraphs 188, 189, 208)
11.    Actions brought by officials – Unlimited jurisdiction – Compensation for material harm associated with loss of opportunity – Assessment – Criteria
(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91(1))
(see paragraphs 194-203)
Résumé
Seised of two actions brought by YL, the General Court annuls, on the grounds of a breach of the applicant’s right to be heard, the decision of the Council of the European Union not to extend the applicant’s term of office as Executive Director of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). At the same time, it finds that the Council must be considered to be the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts of Employment (‘the AECE’) of the Executive Director of EUIPO so far as concerns the procedure for the extension of his term of office, so that an action seeking annulment of the decision not to extend that term of office must be based on Article 270 TFEU.
On 18 September 2018, the applicant was appointed, pursuant to Article 158(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark, as Executive Director of EUIPO for a period of five years, from 1 October 2018 until 30 September 2023. (1)
After receiving confirmation of YL’s availability and willingness to remain in his position within EUIPO, the Chairperson of the Management Board requested, by note of 31 October 2022, the members of that board to adopt a decision as regards whether it should be proposed to the Council that the applicant’s term of office be extended.
Despite the Chairperson of the Management Board expressing, in that note, an opinion in favour of that proposal, the Management Board decided, at its meeting on 22 November 2022, not to propose to the Council the extension of that term of office, having regard to the assessment of the evaluation of the applicant’s performance during his first term of office and future tasks and challenges of EUIPO, and to launch a selection procedure to find a successor to YL. In March 2023, the Management Board also decided to suspend the delegation to the applicant of the powers of appointing authority.
By letter notified to EUIPO on 30 May 2023, the Council rejected the applicant’s request for an extension of his term of office, after taking into account the assessment made by the Management Board.
His complaints against the decisions of the Management Board on the non-proposal of the extension of his term of office, on the selection procedure for a new Executive Director and on the suspension of the delegation of the powers of appointing authority having been rejected, the applicant brought a first action in Case T‑435/23 seeking annulment of those decisions and that of the decision not to extend his term of office, as reflected in the letter notified to EUIPO on 30 May 2023. After the rejection of his subsequent complaint against the latter decision, he brought a second action before the Court in Case T‑224/24, seeking to have that decision annulled.
In both actions, the applicant also seeks compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm he considers himself to have suffered.
Findings of the Court
As a preliminary matter, the Court declares itself to have jurisdiction to hear and determine the actions brought by the applicant under Article 270 TFEU.
In that regard, the Court recalls that, under that provision, it is to have jurisdiction in any dispute between the Union and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘the CEOS’) and that, in that context, the notion of ‘dispute between the Union and its servants’ has been given a wide definition by the case-law.
As regards, first, the jurisdiction ratione personae under Article 270 TFEU, Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations states that the Court of Justice is to have jurisdiction in any dispute between the European Union and ‘any person to whom [the] Staff Regulations apply’.
It is apparent from Article 158(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 that the Executive Director of EUIPO is engaged as a temporary agent under Article 2(a) of the CEOS, a fact to which the employment contract signed between EUIPO and the applicant expressly refers. Moreover, the Executive Director is part of the staff of EUIPO, to which the Staff Regulations, the CEOS and the regulations implementing those provisions apply, while the Management Board is designated, under the first paragraph of Article 6 of the CEOS, as the AECE of the Executive Director so far as concerns the procedure for the exercise of the powers of the Executive Director for the purposes of the functioning of EUIPO.
Accordingly, the applicant brought his actions in his capacity as a servant of the European Union within the meaning of Article 270 TFEU, and a person to whom the Staff Regulations apply within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of those regulations.
Concerning, secondly, the jurisdiction ratione materiae, any dispute between an official and the institution to which he or she belongs falls within the scope of Article 270 TFEU where that dispute has its origin in the employment relationship between the former and the latter.
On that issue, the Court observes that the decision suspending the delegation of the powers of appointing authority is taken by the Management Board and the purpose of that decision is to suspend the powers of appointing authority which that board delegated to the applicant in his capacity as Executive Director. Thus, in so far as the dispute concerns that decision, it relates to the employment relationship between the applicant and EUIPO.
The same is true with regard to the dispute concerning the non-extension of the applicant's term of office. During the procedure for extension of the term of office of the Executive Director, the Management Board makes an assessment of that director’s performance and EUIPO’s future tasks and challenges, whereas the Council may, taking into account that assessment, extend that term of office. With that in mind, although the Executive Director does not have a formal employment relationship with the Council, the fact remains that that institution adopts a decision which, regardless of its content, has consequences for the employment relationship between the Executive Director and his or her employer, EUIPO, and, accordingly, for his or her employment as a member of the temporary staff. Thus, the Council must be regarded as the AECE of the Executive Director so far as concerns the procedure for the extension of his or her term of office.
In addition, the Court considers the admissibility of the claims for annulment directed against the decision on the non-proposal of extension of the applicant’s term of office.
It recalls, in that regard, that all acts adopted by the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union which are intended to produce binding legal effects such as to affect the applicant’s interests may be the subject of an action for annulment. Where the adoption of acts or decisions takes place following a procedure which involved several stages, only the measures which definitively lay down the position of the institution constitute acts open to challenge, not the intermediate measures which preceded them and which were intended to pave the way for the final decision.
In the present case, the procedure for extension of the term of office of the Executive Director takes place in two stages, the first of which consists in an assessment undertaken by the Management Board, and the second of which consists in the adoption of a decision by the Council on any extension, which takes into account that assessment, without nevertheless being bound by it. Since the final decision is therefore taken by the Council, the decision on the non-proposal of extension of the applicant’s term of office is a preparatory act, in that it produces no binding legal effect such as to affect the applicant’s interest and in that it is not liable to affect the freedom of choice of the Council as regards that extension. Consequently, the application for annulment of the latter decision is inadmissible.
By contrast, the Court holds admissible the claim for annulment of the Council’s decision not to extend the applicant’s term of office. Examining that claim as to its substance, it addresses the applicant’s complaint alleging breach of the right to be heard.
It begins by recalling that that right applies to any procedure initiated against a person and which may adversely affect his or her interests, even where the applicable rules do not provide for it. In the present case, the applicant had expressly confirmed his availability and his willingness to retain his post within EUIPO before the decision not to extend his term of office. That latter decision must thus be regarded as having been adopted following a request on his part seeking the extension of his term of office. Given that the decision not to extend the applicant’s term of office inevitably leads to the non-renewal of his contract as a member of the temporary staff of EUIPO, it affects him adversely and therefore the right to be heard is applicable on its adoption. In that regard, it is of no relevance to ask whether the procedure for appointment of the Executive Director and for the extension of his term of office falls within the scope of the Staff Regulations and the CEOS.
Next, the Court finds that the applicant’s interest in being heard arose above all once it had become apparent, at the end of the meeting of the Management Board on 22 November 2022, that there was no majority on that board in favour of an extension of his term of office. Prior to that point, the applicant knew only of the note of 31 October 2022, the content of which was positive in his regard and which contained a recommendation from the Chairperson of the Management Board to extend his term of office. Thus, the Council had to give the applicant an opportunity to exercise effectively his right to be heard at an appropriate point between the meeting of the Management Board on 22 November 2022 and the adoption of the decision not to extend his term of office.
Since the Council had not given the applicant an opportunity to do so, even though the procedure could have culminated in a different outcome, the Court annuls the decision not to extend his term of office on the ground of breach of the right to be heard. It also awards lump-sum compensation of EUR 25 000 in respect of the material harm resulting from the loss of an opportunity for the applicant to have his term of office extended.
The Court also annuls the decision on the suspension of the delegation to the applicant of the powers of appointing authority, the Management Board not having demonstrated the existence of exceptional circumstances such as to provide a basis for that decision.
1      Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).