16.1.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/37

Action brought on 25/10/2016 — Vincenti v EUIPO

(Case T-747/16)

(2017/C 014/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Guillaume Vincenti (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	Annul the EUIPO’s decision not to recognize the applicant’s total permanent incapacity to perform duties and its refusal to declare that he shall be retired

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations, namely Articles 7-9, 13, 33, and 78 thereof, and Articles 13-16 of Annex VIII to those Regulations and in particular Article 53 of the Staff Regulations.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached its fiduciary duty and the principle of sound administration (Articles 41(1), 41 (2)(a), (b) and (c), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU) as well as the applicant’s procedural rights, also by basing the Contested Decision on distorted facts:

3.	Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 3(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

In support of the above pleas, the applicant argues in particular that the Appointing Authority does not have any discretion within the procedure for invalidity according to the relevant stipulations of the Staff Regulations to recognise or not recognise the permanent incapacity of an official to perform his duties, since the decision of the Invalidity Committee is binding and, even on the assumption that the Appointing Authority has a discretion within this procedure, there was no justified reason in the case of the applicant not to recognize his permanent incapacity.