Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/38 |

---

Action brought on 29 March 2017 — QD v EUIPO

(Case T-199/17)

(2017/C 161/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the decision of EUIPO of 2 June 2016, notified to the applicant on 3 June 2016, to refuse the second renewal of the applicant’s contract as a temporary Agent pursuant to Article 2(f) CEOS; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the relevant provisions of the SR and CEOS, namely Article 110 SR, Article 2(f) and 8 CEOS. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached its fiduciary duty and its duty of care. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the principle of sound administration (Art. 41 (1), Art. 41 (2)(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR)). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the requirements of Regulation 45/2001[(1)](#ntr1-C_2017161EN.01003801-E0001), especially of Article 27(1) and (2)(b). |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the legitimate expectations of the applicant. |

---

[Top](#document1)