# C_2023024EN.01004601.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/46

---

Action brought on 10 October 2022 — ZR v EUIPO

(Case T-634/22)

(2023/C 24/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of the EUIPO dated 14 December 2021 and notified on the same date, informing the applicant of the payment in its favour of the amount of EUR 5 000 in order to implement the judgment delivered by the General Court on 13 January 2021 in case T-610/18 ZR v EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of the EUIPO dated 14 December 2021 and notified on the same date, informing the applicant of the payment in its favour of the amount of EUR 5 000 in order to implement the judgment delivered by the General Court on 13 January 2021 in case T-610/18 ZR v EUIPO;

| — | in as far as necessary, annul the decision of the Chairperson of the Management Board of EUIPO, dated 28 June 2022, notified on the same date, rejecting the complaint filed under Article 90(2) of the EU Staff Regulations against the decision of 14 December 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

in as far as necessary, annul the decision of the Chairperson of the Management Board of EUIPO, dated 28 June 2022, notified on the same date, rejecting the complaint filed under Article 90(2) of the EU Staff Regulations against the decision of 14 December 2021;

| — | award compensation of its material and moral prejudices; and |
| --- | --- |

—

award compensation of its material and moral prejudices; and

| — | order the reimbursement of all the costs incurred for the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the reimbursement of all the costs incurred for the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 266 TFEU and of the principle of equal treatment, as enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, concerning the applicant in relation to other candidates who participated in the selection procedure.
  The amount of EUR 5 000 cannot be considered as putting the applicant in the same situation as other candidates who, as a result of the breach of this principle, were included in the reserve list or obtained a more advantageous compensation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 266 TFEU and of the principle of equal treatment, as enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, concerning the applicant in relation to other candidates who participated in the selection procedure.

The amount of EUR 5 000 cannot be considered as putting the applicant in the same situation as other candidates who, as a result of the breach of this principle, were included in the reserve list or obtained a more advantageous compensation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the right of defence/right to judge, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of the principles of good administration, duty of care and duty to state reasons, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
  As regards the breach of the right of defence/right to judge, the only reason for refusal by the defendant of giving any consideration to the option of a transfer is based on the fact that the applicant exercised its right of appeal. The mere fact that the applicant lodged an appeal cannot be presented as a valid justification for the administration to deny a fair implementation of the judgment in case T-610/18 ZR v EUIPO;
  As regards the breach of the principles of good administration, duty of care and duty to state reasons:






  — | first, the defendant did not take into consideration all the factors capable of affecting its decision since legally tenable options were rejected and the alternative option was ignored; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the right of defence/right to judge, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of the principles of good administration, duty of care and duty to state reasons, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

As regards the breach of the right of defence/right to judge, the only reason for refusal by the defendant of giving any consideration to the option of a transfer is based on the fact that the applicant exercised its right of appeal. The mere fact that the applicant lodged an appeal cannot be presented as a valid justification for the administration to deny a fair implementation of the judgment in case T-610/18 ZR v EUIPO;

As regards the breach of the principles of good administration, duty of care and duty to state reasons:

—

first, the defendant did not take into consideration all the factors capable of affecting its decision since legally tenable options were rejected and the alternative option was ignored;

| — | second, the exchanges with the defendant based on one option envisaged by the administration can hardly qualify as a comprehensive dialogue aiming at finding a just solution. |
| --- | --- |

—

second, the exchanges with the defendant based on one option envisaged by the administration can hardly qualify as a comprehensive dialogue aiming at finding a just solution.

---