Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| European flag | Official Journal  of the European Union | EN  C series |

---

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | C/2025/736 | 10.2.2025 |

Action brought on 26 November 2024 – WS v EUIPO

(Case T-612/24)

(C/2025/736)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WS (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 the EUIPO to reject the applicant’s requests of 1 August 2024 for access to public documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; [(1)](#ntr1-C_202500736EN.000101-E0001) |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the EUIPO to pay the procedural costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached its obligation of complying with Articles 2(1), 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001. [(2)](#ntr2-C_202500736EN.000101-E0002)

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The applicant backs his claim especially by submitting that the EUIPO acknowledged neither the receipt of any of his three requests for documents submitted on 1 August 2024, nor the receipt of his corresponding confirmatory applications of 26 August 2024 within the time limit of Article 8(1) Regulation (EC) 1049/2001. The EUIPO replied by email of 15 November 2024 (nearly two months after the deadline of 16 September 2024) and rejected (again) the applicant’s second request, ignoring the first and the third request.  The applicant countered the arguments brought forward by the EUIPO in its letter of 15 November 2024 in support of its rejection of the applicant’s second request concerning complaints under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and their respective replies as follows: |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The EUIPO cannot refute the applicant's right of access to documents by arguing that the applicant already has the requested documents in his possession. The applicant has a right of access also to these documents under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 because the right of access based on this Regulation grants him a different (more extensive) legal position for the use of these documents than the possession of the documents on the basis of other legal provisions. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The applicant challenges the EUIPO’s argument that access to the requested documents is not possible due to the protection of personal data, on the grounds that this aspect can be taken into account by redacting personal data in accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 and does not justify a complete refusal of access. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The EUIPO argues that it does not have any documents under point 6 of Decision ADM-00-37 within the scope of the applicant’s request. The applicant counters this by explaining why such documents must exist. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The applicant in principle accepts the EUIPO’s position to refuse access based on the exception of Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001. However, the applicant submits that this argument cannot be used to deny access to all the documents requested, since documents relating to closed proceedings should be disclosed. He adds that EUIPO would have to substantiate such exceptions with the case numbers of the ongoing court proceedings in order to allow the applicant to resubmit the request concerning those cases once the proceedings have been concluded. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | EUIPO invokes the exception of Article 4(3), paragraph 2, of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, claiming that the requested documents contain information on selection procedures, the disclosure of which would jeopardise the decision-making process. The applicant objects to this, stating that the EUIPO, in its replies to complaints, will generally not disclose any information about any selection procedure that could jeopardise the decision-making process and argues, that if, in exceptional cases, this has been done, the passage in question can be redacted. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The applicant further submits that the requested access to documents is in the public interest for the following reasons: (i) to ensure transparency in the way decisions are taken by the EUIPO, considering that the applicant has been denied fundamental rights (of access to documents and with regard to the protection of his personal data); (ii) to ensure transparency and equal opportunities in EU selection procedures, considering that EUIPO has been conducting non-invigilated selection procedures from 2020 until at least 2024 in accordance with EUIPO guidelines and the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA); (iii) to ensure transparency in the way the EUIPO handles data breaches, considering that the applicant has reported several personal data breaches and the EUIPO has ignored communications from the applicant on this matter. |

---

---

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/736/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

---

[Top](#document1)