Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/36 |

---

Action brought on 26 April 2023 — WS v EUIPO

(Case T-221/23)

(2023/C 261/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WS (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the selection procedure EXT/22/08/AD6/DTD-Business Analyst; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | alternatively, annul the decision of the selection committee of the selection procedure EXT/22/08/AD6/DTD-Business Analyst of 30 June 2022 not to take the applicant’s application any further, in its final form after EUIPO’s rejection of 16 January 2023 of the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of 28 September 2022; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order EUIPO to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court to the applicant for the moral and immaterial damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the selection committee of the selection procedure EXT/22/08/AD6/DTD-Business Analyst contested by Request 1; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO violated its obligation of complying with Article 4(1a), (1d), (1f) and (2), Article 17(3) and Article 33(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council, [(1)](#ntr1-C_2023261EN.01003602-E0001) Article 5 (1a), (1d), (1f) and (2), Article 15(3) and Article 32(1b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council, [(2)](#ntr2-C_2023261EN.01003602-E0002) and the vacancy notice.   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | The applicant backs this claim especially by submitting that the EUIPO respectively the selection committee failed to properly assess his suitability for the position by not using the latest versions of the documents provided by him. | |

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the selection committee committed manifest errors of assessment by not awarding his answers in the talent screener to questions 1 to 5 the maximum achievable score.   |  |  | | --- | --- | | — | He backs his claim by outlining and explaining the abilities and experiences he brought forward in the answers to these questions. | |

---

---

[Top](#document1)