CELEX: 62020CN0653
Language: en
Date: 2020-12-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-653/20 P: 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

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.