Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62016TN0787

    Case T-787/16: Action brought on 11 November 2016 — QD v EUIPO

    IO C 22, 23.1.2017, p. 40–40 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    11/11/2016
    Date lodged:
    11/11/2016
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Béarla
    Type of procedure:
    Cásanna foirne

    23.1.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 22/40

    Action brought on 11 November 2016 — QD v EUIPO

    (Case T-787/16)

    (2017/C 022/55)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: QD (Alicante, Spain) (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 4 March 2016 not to adopt a definitive decision regarding the applicant’s request of 19 January 2016 for a second renewal of her contract concluded under Art. 2(f) CEOS and to defer a definitive decision about the applicant’s request of 19 January 2016 for a second renewal of her contract concluded under Art. 2(f) CEOS to a ‘specific procedure’ in the future; and

    —

    order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO has infringed the relevant provisions of the SR and CEOS, namely Art. 90(1) SR (in connection with Art. 46 CEOS), Annex III to the SR, Art. 2, 8, 53, CEOS, 110 SR;

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached its fiduciary duty;

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached the principle of sound administration (Art. 41 (1), Art. 41 (2)(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR);

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO committed a misuse of power.
    Top