C 94/62
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
13.3.2023
— alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EU trade mark No 18 204 993 CHERRY Passion for all goods in class 30 and the trademark shall be registered; — award the costs in the applicant’s favour.
Pleas in law — Infringement of Article 8(l)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; — Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty; — Infringement of Articles 94(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 30 January 2023 — QN v eu-LISA (Case T-31/23) (2023/C 94/75) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: QN (represented by: H. Tagaras, lawyer) Defendant: European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA)
Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — uphold the application; — annul the contested acts; — order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR 4 000; — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action against the decision of the European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) of 5 August 2022 to confirm the applicant’s staff report for 2021, the applicant relies on six pleas in law. 1.
First plea, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons as a result of, inter alia, the lack of consistency in the contested measures, in particular with regard to the relationship between the numerical marks and the written assessment in the staff report. 2.
Second plea, alleging manifest errors of assessment regarding the applicant’s numerical mark on account of the lack of cohesion and consistency of that mark with the written assessment in the staff report. 3.
Third plea, alleging infringement of the rules governing the drawing up of staff reports, abuse of process and misuse of powers, and breach of the duty of impartiality, in particular on account of the fact that the applicant’s first reporting officer amended his draft report in the light of developments in another procedure concerning the applicant, namely an administrative investigation procedure.