Case T‑417/18

Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 24 October 2019

(Action for annulment – Institutional law – Obligation to award the translation services required for EUIPO’s functioning to the CdT – Termination of the arrangement between the CdT and EUIPO – Publication of a call for tenders for translation services – Plea of inadmissibility – No interest in bringing proceedings – No need to adjudicate in part – Partial inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Action allegedly concerning a dispute of a contractual nature – Action challenging a decision by EUIPO to terminate the arrangement concluded on the basis of Regulation No 2965/94 with the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, covering the ways in which they would cooperate – Precluded – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Admissibility

   (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 2965/94, Art. 2(1), first subparagraph; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 148)

   (see paragraphs 35-40)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action challenging a decision by EUIPO to terminate the arrangement concluded on the basis of Regulation No 2965/94 with the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, covering the ways in which they would cooperate – Conclusion of a new arrangement during the proceedings – Interest in bringing proceedings retained – Absence

   (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 2965/94, Art. 2(1), first subparagraph)

   (see paragraphs 43-55)

3. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Letter from EUIPO reserving the right to take precautionary measures to ensure continuity in the provision of translation services – Precluded – Inadmissibility

   (Art. 263 TFEU)

   (see paragraphs 58, 59)

4. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Decision by EUIPO to publish a call for tenders for translation services – Contract notice only giving interested parties the possibility of taking part in the procedure and submitting a tender – Precluded

   (Art. 263 TFEU)

   (see paragraphs 64-73)

5. Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution – Claim for a declaratory judgment – Inadmissibility

   (Art. 263 TFEU)

   (see paragraphs 76, 79, 82-84)

6. Judicial proceedings – Costs – Costs caused unreasonably or vexatiously – Conduct of an EU body or office encouraging litigation

   (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(2))

   (see paragraphs 85, 86)

Résumé

In the judgment in CdT v EUIPO (T‑417/18), delivered on 24 October 2019, the Court, first, had the opportunity to rule on an objection of lack of competence and inadmissibility raised by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in an action for annulment brought by the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union ( 1 ) (CdT).

That action concerned a letter of 26 April 2018 in which EUIPO had stated its intention not to extend the arrangement entered into on 13 December 2016 with the CdT ( 2 ) covering the ways in which those two parties were to cooperate for the year 2017 in relation to the translation services required for the functioning of EUIPO, due to EUIPO’s dissatisfaction with the services provided, and also informed the CdT of its intention to take the necessary precautionary steps to ensure the continuity of the translation services. The action also concerned EUIPO’s decision to publish a call for tenders for the translation services in question in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 June 2018.

Secondly, the Court ruled on an application for an order prohibiting EUIPO from signing contracts in connection with that call for tenders, and, thirdly, on an application for a declaration that the publication of a call for tenders for translation services by an agency or any other body or office of the European Union is unlawful, where a founding regulation ( 3 ) stipulates that translation services are to be provided by the CdT.

Having found that it had jurisdiction to rule on the present action, the Court found that there was no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of the decision to terminate the arrangement concluded between the CdT and EUIPO and dismissed the action as to the remainder.

The Court held, first, that, despite EUIPO’s assertions to the contrary, it had jurisdiction to rule on the dispute, which did not fall within a purely contractual framework since the arrangement in question fell within the context of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2965/94 and Article 148 of Regulation 2017/1001.

Secondly, with regard to the admissibility of the action in so far as it was directed against the letter of 26 April 2018, the Court held that, in any event, any initial interest that the CdT had in obtaining annulment of EUIPO’s decision to terminate the 2016 arrangement, supposedly contained in that letter, did not continue after the signature of a new arrangement between those two agencies, namely the 2018 arrangement covering the ways in which they would cooperate in 2019 and 2020.

Thirdly, the Court rejected as inadmissible other claims of the CdT, more particularly those challenging EUIPO’s decision that it could unilaterally take certain measures to ensure provision of its translation services, including the publication of calls for tender and the signature, if applicable, of contracts with any tenderers selected, in essence because there were no binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the CdT by bringing about a distinct change in its legal position.

Fourthly, the Court rejected as inadmissible the CdT’s claim for a declaration that it is unlawful for an agency or any other body or office of the EU whose founding regulation provides that its translation services are to be provided by the CdT, because such a claim would either involve the Court issuing directions to EUIPO or would be seeking a declaratory judgment.

In addition, the Court nevertheless ordered EUIPO, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay half of the costs of the CdT, owing to its conduct during negotiations with the CdT regarding their mutual cooperation in the area of translation services and the uncertain situation in which it had placed the CdT, leading the latter to bring the action.

( 1 ) The Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) is a body set up by Council Regulation (EC) No 2965/94 of 28 November 1994 (OJ 1994 L 314, p. 1). Its purpose is to provide translation services to the bodies referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of that regulation and to the institutions and bodies of the European Union pursuant to Article 2(3) thereof; under the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2965/94, the CdT is to ‘provide the necessary translation services for the operation’ of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), which became the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

( 2 ) The second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2965/94 provides that the CdT and the bodies listed in the first subparagraph thereof, therefore including EUIPO, are to ‘conclude arrangements covering the ways in which they will cooperate’.

( 3 ) See, by way of example, Article 148 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).