Action brought on 10 October 2022 — LD v EUIPO

(Case T-633/22)

(2023/C 7/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LD (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— First, annul the decision of the EUIPO of 1 December 2021 insofar as it rejects the applicant’s requests submitted with her letter of 8 August 2021 and with the letter of her lawyer of 12 November 2021; and the applicant further requests as follows: — order the EUIPO to correct its erroneous measures (such correction and erroneous measures elaborated and referenced in detail in [the said] letter of [lawyer’s name] of 12 November 2021) and inform the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation that the applicant is still an EUIPO official with all the rights and privileges provided in the EU Staff Regulations, the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities and the Seat Agreement; — order the EUIPO to issue amended information to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation in order that the Ministry’s unlawful approach and decisions can be rectified as soon as possible; — order the EUIPO to ensure that it uses all factual and legal means vis-à-vis the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation to retain or restore the applicant’s full privileges under the EU Staff Regulations, the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities and the Seat Agreement.

— Furthermore, annul any implicit decision of the EUIPO (Art. 90(1), 3rd sentence, EU Staff Regulations) about these requests of the applicant;

— Second, annul the decision of the EUIPO of 1 December 2021 insofar as it rejects the applicant’s request submitted with her letter of 8 August 2021 for material damages based on the EUIPO’s misconduct in dealing with the implementation of the EU Staff Regulations in connection with the applicant’s leave in the interest of the service, and order the EUIPO to pay material damages to the applicant in the amount of EUR 7 500;

— Third, order the EUIPO to pay immaterial damages to the applicant in an amount left to the discretion of the court;

— Fourth, order the EUIPO to pay its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law, namely that, by EUIPO’s refusal to grant the requests submitted by the applicant, the EUIPO breaches its duty of care, the applicant’s right to good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU), Articles 35 and 42c of the EU Staff Regulations, Articles 11-13 of the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (1) and Articles 2-3 of the Headquarters Agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the European Union, relating to EUIPO. (2)

— The applicant claims that EUIPO commits the above breaches by its refusal to grant the requests submitted by the applicant, seeking to ensure that EUIPO uses all factual and legal means vis-à-vis the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation to retain or restore the applicant’s full privileges under the EU Staff Regulations, the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union PPI and the Headquarters Agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the European Union, in particular the issuing of an accreditation card and the right to be given OI plates;

— The applicant argues that the EUIPO committed manifest errors in interpreting among others Article 42c of the EU Staff Regulations and also breached its duty of care, when implementing the applicant’s leave in the interest of the service. The applicant submits that the EUIPO, during a period of several months, was of the false opinion that the applicant’s employment with the EUIPO would end with the start of the applicant’s leave in the interest of service and acted and informed the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation according to this false opinion;

— The applicant further submits that this wrong approach and behaviour of the EUIPO was the reason for the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation to deprive the applicant of her rights and privileges provided in the EU Staff Regulations, the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union PPI and the Headquarters Agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the European Union. Therefore, the applicant holds that EUIPO, among others, breaches its duty of care by not complying with the applicant’s request to take a decision to act towards the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation and rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation of material and immaterial damages.

(1) OJ 2016 C 202, p. 266.

(2) Editorial Note: This ‘Headquarters Agreement’ (official name) is in fact defined in the application as the ‘Seat Agreement’ or ‘SA’.