Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/5 |

---

Appeal brought on 2 December 2020 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2020 in Case T-174/19, Guillaume Vincenti v EUIPO

(Case C-653/20 P)

(2021/C 148/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and K. Tóth, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Guillaume Vincenti

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 in Case T-174/19, Guillaume Vincenti v EUIPO; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | order the applicant to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings at first instance. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on two grounds of appeal:

First, the General Court misapplied Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by ruling that the official must be heard before a decision not to promote him is taken.

On the one hand, the General Court failed to recognise that there is no subjective right to promotion and that non-promotion does not constitute an infringement of rights.

On the other hand, the General Court also failed to recognise that non-promotion is not comparable to a punitive administrative act.

Second, the General Court held that it cannot be excluded that the decision could reasonably have led to a different result if EUIPO had heard the official beforehand. In that regard, there is a failure to state reasons because the General Court did not examine the applicant’s arguments.

---

[Top](#document1)