Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 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; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | 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; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | 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. |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 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 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. |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | 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. |

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

---

[Top](#document1)