- 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-400/21: Action brought on 2 July 2021 — ZR v EUIPO
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0400
62021TN0400
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
13.9.2021
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 368/25
(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.