CELEX: 62020TN0022
Language: en
Date: 2020-01-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-22/20: Action brought on 13 January 2020 — IB v EUIPO

2.3.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 68/64
            
         
      Action brought on 13 January 2020 — IB v EUIPO
      (Case T-22/20)
      (2020/C 68/72)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: IB (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the revocation decision of the appointing authority of 14 March 2019;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.
      
                  —
               
               
                  Grounds for annulment concerning the definitive closure of the invalidity procedure. The applicant alleges, in this regard, misuse of power, maladministration and breach of the duties of impartiality, objectivity and neutrality.
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Grounds for annulment concerning the disciplinary measure imposed. The applicant alleges, in this regard, procedural irregularity, infringement of Article 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, misuse of power, failure to respect the confidentiality of the OLAF report for the points of enquiry closed without further action, upholding the allegations despite closure without further action and breach of the presumption of innocence. The applicant also alleges infringement of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, breach of the rights of defence, manifest error of assessment of the criteria set out in Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and failure to state reasons.