CELEX: 62017TN0199
Language: en
Date: 2017-03-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-199/17: Action brought on 29 March 2017 — QD v EUIPO

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), especially of Article 27(1) and (2)(b).
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Sixth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the legitimate expectations of the applicant.
            
         
      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 008, 2001, p. 1)