17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/28

(Case T-610/18)

(2018/C 455/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZR (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the selection board’s decision of 1 December 2017 not to place the applicant on the ‘reserve list’, that is, the database of successful candidates, of open competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 — AD 6 — Administrators in the field of intellectual property;

—in so far as necessary, annul the selection board’s decision of 7 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for review;

—in so far as necessary, annul the decision of the EUIPO Executive Director of 27 June 2018 and notified on 29 June 2018, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations and Article 1(a) and (c) of Annex III to those Regulations.

2.Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of Annex III to those Regulations and of Article 3 of Annex III to the Notice of Competition (‘General Rules Governing Open Competitions’).

—The applicant relies in that regard on the allegedly irregular designation of the members of the selection board.

—The applicant further refers to a lack of publication of the decisions appointing the selection board and of the names of all the members of the Selection Board.

—The applicant cites non-equal representation with regard to staff committee/appointing authority representation on the selection board.

—The applicant also cites non-equal representation on that board from a gender balance perspective.

—Finally, in regard to that plea, the applicant alleges violation of the principle of stability and continuity of the selection board.

3.Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of appreciation, violation of the duty to state reasons and a lack of transparency.

—The applicant claims that certain facts were omitted by the selection board, referring in that regard to the board’s evaluation of competencies as described in the notice of competition.

—The applicant claims that certain results specified in the competency passport failed to comply with the notice of competition and complains about a lack of transparency in that respect.

—The applicant also complains that the competency passport contained contradictory statements.