Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/23 |

---

Appeal brought on 5 January 2023 by the European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 October 2022 in Case T-298/20, KD v EUIPO

(Case C-5/23 P)

(2023/C 216/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Predonzani, K. Tóth, Agents)

Other party: KD

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | set aside the judgment under appeal [(1)](#ntr1-C_2023216EN.01002302-E0001); |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | dismiss the annulment action as inadmissible, or reject it as unfounded or, should the Court of Justice find itself unable to take a final decision, refer the case back to the General Court, and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the applicant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the EUIPO puts forward four grounds of appeal.

By its first ground of appeal, directed against paragraphs 23 to 31 of the judgment under appeal, the Office alleges an error of law in the interpretation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations read in combination with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations.

By its second ground of appeal, directed against paragraphs 67, 72 to 76, 79 and 80 of the judgment under appeal, the Office puts forward errors of law as regards the legal nature of the Reporting Officer’s Practical Dossier, the sanctioned infringement of the duty to state reasons and the consequences derived therefrom.

By its third ground of appeal, directed against paragraphs 93 and 96 to 103 of the judgment under appeal, the Office alleges a distortion of the facts and a wrongful appraisal of the evidence.

By its fourth ground of appeal, directed against paragraphs 121 to 129 of the judgment under appeal, the Office claims that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the duty of care and infringed its duty to provide a statement of reasons.

---

---

[Top](#document1)