Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62020TN0022

Case T-22/20: Action brought on 13 January 2020 — IB v EUIPO

OJ C 68, 2.3.2020, p. 64–64 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

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.
Top