- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-548/18: Action brought on 18 September 2018 — Helbert v EUIPO
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0548
62018TN0548
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
26.11.2018
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 427/85
(Case T-548/18)
(2018/C 427/112)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Lars Helbert (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)
Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decision of the selection board of open competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 (1) of the 1st of December 2017 and of the 7th of March 2018 not to include the applicant in the database of successful candidates in its final form after EUIPO’s rejection of 08/06/2018 of the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;
—order EUIPO to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court to the applicant for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the selection board; and
—order EUIPO to pay the procedural 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 that the composition and consistency of the Selection Board presented irregularities, directly resulting in a lack of coherence of the evaluation and a violation of the principles of equal opportunity, equal treatment and objectivity of the evaluations, in breach of articles 3.1 and 2.4 of the General rules governing open competitions.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Selection Board did not undertake a comparative assessment of the candidate, in breach of the obligation to observe the principles of equal treatment, equal opportunity and objectivity of the evaluation, according to art. 2.4 of the General rules governing open competitions.
3.Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the applicant’s performance in the ‘specific competency-based interview’.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Selection Board infringed the Notice of Competition EUIPO/AD/01/17 as well as principles of equal treatment, equal opportunity and the objectivity of the evaluation.
(1) OJ 2017 C 9 A, p. 1
* * *