EN
C 252/60
Official Journal of the European Union
17.7.2023
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on six 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 her mother tongue made it impossible to assess accurately her skills, since the result of her tests was also conditional on her level of knowledge of that language.
This also led to an infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. — Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment among candidates, in that only some of the candidates were offered the possibility of resitting the written tests, as well as a failure to assess candidates objectively (case-law in Glantenay) and infringement of Article 5(1) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations.
The comparison between the candidates in the tests in the assessment centre was distorted because the selection board had not checked in advance the accuracy of the information from the talent screener. — Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the related principle of equality of the parties to proceedings (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) since the applicant was not put in a position to know all of the reasons for which she was excluded from the competition before she lodged her action.
That also constituted an infringement of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings. — Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(5) and (6) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in that the selection board failed to include on that reserve list at least twice as many candidates as there were posts available in the competition. — Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles in the case-law in Di Prospero v Commission and infringement of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equality in that the competition notice did not allow candidates to participate in both the AD 7 and AD 9 competitions, whereas certain candidates who had applied for the AD 9 competition were automatically transferred to the AD 7 reserve list. — Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of candidates and lack of objectivity of assessment, due to the lack of stability in the selection board as a result of frequent changes to the composition of the selection board and the absence of shadowing by the President.
Action brought on 16 May 2023 — Mushie & Co. v EUIPO — Diana Dolls Fashions (Mushie) (Case T-262/23) (2023/C 252/72) Language in which the application was lodged: English Parties Applicant: Mushie & Co. (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: S. Vasegård, lawyer) Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diana Dolls Fashions Inc. (Stoney Creek, Canada)
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 mark Mushie — Application for registration No 18 381 490 Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2023 in Case R 2062/2022-4