C_2018341EN.01001701.xml

Action brought on 6 July 2018 — CdT v EUIPO

(Case T-417/18)

(2018/C 341/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: J. Rikkert and M. Garnier, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

—	annul EUIPO’s decision of 26 April 2018 to terminate the arrangement concluded with the CdT;

—	annul EUIPO’s decision of 26 April 2018 claiming the right to implement all the preliminary measures necessary to ensure the continuity of provision of the translation services which it requires, in particular by issuing calls for tenders;

—	annul EUIPO’s decision to issue a call for tenders for translation services, published in the Official Journal under reference 2018/S 114-258472, and excluding the CdT from signing any contracts in connection with that call for tenders;

—	declare it unlawful for an agency or any other body or office of the EU whose founding regulation provides that the translation services which it requires are to be provided by the CdT to issue a call for tenders for translation services;

—	order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with procedure. The applicant claims, first, that, in the event of difficulties between the CdT and its clients, Article 11 of the founding regulation of the CdT is applicable, and secondly, that EUIPO’s decision of 26 April 2018 claiming the right to implement all the preliminary measures necessary to ensure the continuity of provision of the translation services which it requires infringes Article 11 of that founding regulation by failing to comply with the mediation procedure provide for by that article in the event of difficulties between the two agencies concerned.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of foresight on the part of EUIPO. In that regard, the applicant claims that:

—	first, the situation that EUIPO has created as a result of the actions complained of infringes Article 148 of the founding regulation of EUIPO and Article 2 of the Founding Regulation of the CdT, in that it could lead to the absence of a valid arrangement as of 1 January 2019;

—

secondly, Article 2 of the founding regulation of the CdT lists the different types of clients of the CdT and Article 2(1) expressly names seven agencies, bodies and offices, including EUIPO, for which the CdT is to provide the translation services necessary for their operation. In addition, Article 2(3) states that institutions and bodies which have their own translation service may, on a voluntary basis, make use of the CdT’s services;

—

thirdly, it follows from a combined reading of Articles 2(1) and 2(3) of the founding regulation of the CdT that the agencies listed in Article 2(1) are not entitled to decide, on a voluntary basis, whether or not to make use of the CdT’s services, and consequently may decide to terminate an arrangement concluded with the CdT only where another such arrangement is subsequently to enter into force.

Third plea in law, alleging lack of competence on the part of EUIPO to issue a call for tenders for translation services. Without prejudging the results of the evaluation of the call for tenders in question, the applicant notes that, on account of its decision to issue that call for tenders, EUIPO has created a situation in which it cannot comply with Articles 148 and 2 of the founding regulations of EUIPO and of the CdT respectively. Lastly, the applicant submits that, in the present case, the signing of contracts and the purchase of translation services would constitute a manifest infringement of the aforementioned Article 148 and, consequently, more specifically, EUIPO is not lawfully entitled to complete the process initiated by the call for tenders, which would involve the signing of contracts.