10.8.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/32

—

(Case T-271/15 P)

(2015/C 262/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Tuula Rajala (El Campello, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 March 2015 in Case F-24/14;

—annul the appraisal report issued to the appellant in respect of the period from 1st October 2011 to 31 December 2012;

—order OHIM to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court — not below an amount of EUR 500 — to the appellant for the moral and immaterial damages suffered by the appellant as a result of the aforesaid appraisal report;

—order OHIM to pay the costs as regards the proceedings in the Civil Service Tribunal and in the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal distorted major facts and based the judgment on the distorted facts. The appellant puts forward the following distortions:

—distortion concerning the fact that the timeliness was affected by the appellant’s health problems;

—distortion concerning the fact that the timeliness was negatively affected by being the only examiner working in Finnish for part of the appraisal period and one of only two Finnish examiners for the remainder of the appraisal period;

—distortion concerning the fact that the appellant handled an uncommonly large number of particularly difficult and time consuming cases;

—distortion of facts concerning the negative impact that the implementation of the IP Translator judgment had on the quantitative output of the appellant and the timeliness of the appellant’s decisions;

—distortion of the facts concerning the timeliness figures of the appellant compared to other examiners.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when stating that a manifest error in the assessment of performance cannot be revealed from the finding that of the seven competencies assessed, five were deemed to be at least consistent with the level required for the position held.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when rejecting the breach by OHIM of its fiduciary duty.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when rejecting the breach by OHIM of the legitimate expectations of the appellant.

—