# C_2018455EN.01002801.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/28

---

Action brought on 9 October 2018 — ZR v EUIPO

(Case T-610/18)

(2018/C 455/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZR (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the selection board’s decision of 1 December 2017 not to place the applicant on the ‘reserve list’, that is, the database of successful candidates, of open competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 — AD 6 — Administrators in the field of intellectual property; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the selection board’s decision of 1 December 2017 not to place the applicant on the ‘reserve list’, that is, the database of successful candidates, of open competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 — AD 6 — Administrators in the field of intellectual property;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the selection board’s decision of 7 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for review; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the selection board’s decision of 7 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for review;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the EUIPO Executive Director of 27 June 2018 and notified on 29 June 2018, rejecting the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the EUIPO Executive Director of 27 June 2018 and notified on 29 June 2018, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the 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 violation of Articles 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations and Article 1(a) and (c) of Annex III to those Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations and Article 1(a) and (c) of Annex III to those Regulations.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of Annex III to those Regulations and of Article 3 of Annex III to the Notice of Competition (‘General Rules Governing Open Competitions’).






  — | The applicant relies in that regard on the allegedly irregular designation of the members of the selection board. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of Annex III to those Regulations and of Article 3 of Annex III to the Notice of Competition (‘General Rules Governing Open Competitions’).

—

The applicant relies in that regard on the allegedly irregular designation of the members of the selection board.

| — | The applicant further refers to a lack of publication of the decisions appointing the selection board and of the names of all the members of the Selection Board. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant further refers to a lack of publication of the decisions appointing the selection board and of the names of all the members of the Selection Board.

| — | The applicant cites non-equal representation with regard to staff committee/appointing authority representation on the selection board. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant cites non-equal representation with regard to staff committee/appointing authority representation on the selection board.

| — | The applicant also cites non-equal representation on that board from a gender balance perspective. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant also cites non-equal representation on that board from a gender balance perspective.

| — | Finally, in regard to that plea, the applicant alleges violation of the principle of stability and continuity of the selection board. |
| --- | --- |

—

Finally, in regard to that plea, the applicant alleges violation of the principle of stability and continuity of the selection board.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of appreciation, violation of the duty to state reasons and a lack of transparency.






  — | The applicant claims that certain facts were omitted by the selection board, referring in that regard to the board’s evaluation of competencies as described in the notice of competition. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of appreciation, violation of the duty to state reasons and a lack of transparency.

—

The applicant claims that certain facts were omitted by the selection board, referring in that regard to the board’s evaluation of competencies as described in the notice of competition.

| — | The applicant claims that certain results specified in the competency passport failed to comply with the notice of competition and complains about a lack of transparency in that respect. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant claims that certain results specified in the competency passport failed to comply with the notice of competition and complains about a lack of transparency in that respect.

| — | The applicant also complains that the competency passport contained contradictory statements. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant also complains that the competency passport contained contradictory statements.

---