EN
17.7.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 252/65
— Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the competition notice, Article 5(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and a consequential manifest error of assessment since, in the AD 7 competition, the candidates’ leadership abilities were assessed, whereas that quality should have been assessed solely vis-à-vis the AD 9 candidates. — Sixth 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. — Seventh 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 19 May 2023 — Impossible Foods v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (IMPOSSIBLE) (Case T-273/23) (2023/C 252/77) Language in which the application was lodged: English Parties Applicant: Impossible Foods Inc. (Redwood City, California, United States) (represented by: T. Cohen Jehoram, lawyer) Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) Details of the proceedings before EUIPO Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark IMPOSSIBLE — European Union trade mark No 12 775 664 Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2023 in Case R 665/2022-5 Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the contested decision; — order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings.
Plea in law — Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 18 May 2023 — Tinkoff Bank v Council (Case T-275/23) (2023/C 252/78) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: Tinkoff Bank SA (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: A. Genko, lawyer)