3.7.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 235/63
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word trade mark Bonami — Application for registration No 18 009 799 Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2023 in Case R 1291/2022-5 Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the contested decision and reject the opposition entirely; — order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law — Infringement of procedural requirements related to the (online) substantiation of the opposition; — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 13 May 2023 — WI v Commission (Case T-249/23) (2023/C 235/77) Language of the case: Italian Parties Applicant: WI (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the General Court should: — annul the measure of 5 May 2022 by means of which the applicant was not included on the reserve list for competitions EPSO/AD/380/19-AD 7 and EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9; — annul the measure of 15 July 2022 refusing the request for review of the failure to include the applicant on the reserve list for competitions EPSO/AD/380/19-AD 7 and EPSO/AD/380/19-AD9; — annul the measure of the appointing authority of 10 February 2023 which was wrongfully drawn up following the silence maintained by EPSO for over four months and by which the complaint lodged on 10 October 2022 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) was rejected; and — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law. — First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of law governing the rules on languages in the EU institutions.
Holding the written and oral tests in a language (English and French) other than his mother tongue made it impossible to assess accurately his skills, since the result of his tests was also conditional on his level of knowledge of that language.
This also led to an infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.