EUIPO v KD (Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Judgment) [2024] EUECJ C-5/23P (04 July 2024)

EUIPO v KD (Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Judgment) [2024] EUECJ C-5/23P (04 July 2024)

The appeal was dismissed because the General Court correctly held that exhaustion of internal remedies was not required before challenging an appraisal report, that the obligation to state reasons was mandatory and not met, that the burden of proof regarding reminders was properly allocated, and that the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials required reference to health problems in the report.

Citation
[2024] EUECJ C-5/23P
Parties
Applicant/respondent: KD; Respondent/appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
04 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Staff Regulations, Appraisal Reports, Duty to State Reasons, Welfare of Officials, Internal Remedies, Burden of Proof
European Union Law Employment Law Administrative Law Staff Regulations Appraisal Reports Duty to State Reasons Welfare of Officials Internal Remedies +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KD

Applicant/respondent

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exhaustion of internal remedies is required before challenging an appraisal report under Article 43 of the Staff Regulations.
  2. 2 Whether failure to state reasons for a lower competency mark justifies annulment of an appraisal report.
  3. 3 Whether the reporting officer must provide evidence of reminders regarding deadlines.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the General Court correctly held that exhaustion of internal remedies was not required before challenging an appraisal report, that the obligation to state reasons was mandatory and not met, that the burden of proof regarding reminders was properly allocated, and that the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials required reference to health problems in the report.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Dismisses the appeal
  • Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs