CELEX: 62021TN0400
Language: en
Date: 2021-07-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-400/21: Action brought on 2 July 2021 — ZR v EUIPO

13.9.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 368/25
            
         
      Action brought on 2 July 2021 — ZR v EUIPO
      (Case T-400/21)
      (2021/C 368/41)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: ZR (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of the EUIPO rejecting the applicant’s application for transfer from the European Commission to the EUIPO;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul, insofar as necessary, the decision to reject the applicant’s complaint filed under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to bear the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging a breach of Articles 4, 8, 27, 29 and 110 of Staff Regulations and of the principles of continuity of EU officials, of the comparison of merits and of transparency;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment;
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons and the duty of care, resulting in a manifest error of appreciation.