# C_2010063EN.01005501.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/55

---

Action brought on 19 January 2010 — Yannick Munch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case F-6/10)

2010/C 63/97

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant(s): Yannick Munch (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

Applicant(s):

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for, first, a declaration of invalidity of the clause of the applicant's contract providing for the automatic termination of the employment contract in the event that the applicant is not selected in an external selection procedure for the OHIM, and second a declaration that selection procedures OHMI/AD/01/07, OHMI/AD/02/07, OHMI/AST/01/07 and OHMI/AST/02/02 have no effect on the contract of the applicant. In addition, application for damages.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | The Tribunal should set aside the letter from OHIM of 12 March 2009 and the decisions of OHIM contained in it, according to which the applicant's employment relationship is terminated with seven months' notice as of 16 March 2009, and declare that the applicant's employment relationship with the OHIM continues and has not been terminated. To the extent that the Tribunal considers it necessary, the applicant claims that the Tribunal should also set aside a further letter from OHIM of 9 October 2009, classified by the applicant as related (rejection of complaint). |
| --- | --- |

—

The Tribunal should set aside the letter from OHIM of 12 March 2009 and the decisions of OHIM contained in it, according to which the applicant's employment relationship is terminated with seven months' notice as of 16 March 2009, and declare that the applicant's employment relationship with the OHIM continues and has not been terminated. To the extent that the Tribunal considers it necessary, the applicant claims that the Tribunal should also set aside a further letter from OHIM of 9 October 2009, classified by the applicant as related (rejection of complaint).

| — | The Tribunal should set aside or declare invalid the cancellation clause in Article 5 of the applicant's employment contract with OHIM, and in the alternative,
  declare that the applicant's contract of employment cannot in future be terminated on the basis of the cancellation clause in his employment contract;
  in the further alternative, declare that, in any event, the selection procedures referred to in the letter from OHIM of 12 March 2009 were not capable of entailing negative consequences on the basis of the cancellation clause. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Tribunal should set aside or declare invalid the cancellation clause in Article 5 of the applicant's employment contract with OHIM, and in the alternative,

declare that the applicant's contract of employment cannot in future be terminated on the basis of the cancellation clause in his employment contract;

in the further alternative, declare that, in any event, the selection procedures referred to in the letter from OHIM of 12 March 2009 were not capable of entailing negative consequences on the basis of the cancellation clause.

| — | The Tribunal should order OHIM to pay to the applicant damages of an appropriate amount at the discretion of the Tribunal for the non-material damage arising from the decisions referred to in paragraph 1 of the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Tribunal should order OHIM to pay to the applicant damages of an appropriate amount at the discretion of the Tribunal for the non-material damage arising from the decisions referred to in paragraph 1 of the application.

| — | The Tribunal should declare that OHIM is under an obligation to continue to employ the applicant under the same conditions as hitherto and to reinstate him and order OHIM to compensate the applicant fully for the material damage suffered by him, in particular by paying any outstanding salary and all other expenses incurred by the applicant as a result of OHIM's unlawful conduct (after deduction of unemployment benefit received),
  in the alternative, in the event that, in the present situation, for legal or practical reasons the applicant is not reinstated or re-employed under the same conditions as hitherto, order OHIM to pay the applicant compensation for the unlawful termination of his employment corresponding to the difference between his actual lifetime earnings and the lifetime earnings the applicant would have achieved if the contract had remained in force, taking into account pension benefits and other entitlements;
  at the least, however, pay the applicant compensation for the material damage caused to the applicant by the unlawful termination of his employment, corresponding to the difference between his income earned until 15 October 2009 and the income the applicant would have earned if the contract had run until 15 November 2009, taking account of pension benefits and other entitlements; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Tribunal should declare that OHIM is under an obligation to continue to employ the applicant under the same conditions as hitherto and to reinstate him and order OHIM to compensate the applicant fully for the material damage suffered by him, in particular by paying any outstanding salary and all other expenses incurred by the applicant as a result of OHIM's unlawful conduct (after deduction of unemployment benefit received),

in the alternative, in the event that, in the present situation, for legal or practical reasons the applicant is not reinstated or re-employed under the same conditions as hitherto, order OHIM to pay the applicant compensation for the unlawful termination of his employment corresponding to the difference between his actual lifetime earnings and the lifetime earnings the applicant would have achieved if the contract had remained in force, taking into account pension benefits and other entitlements;

at the least, however, pay the applicant compensation for the material damage caused to the applicant by the unlawful termination of his employment, corresponding to the difference between his income earned until 15 October 2009 and the income the applicant would have earned if the contract had run until 15 November 2009, taking account of pension benefits and other entitlements;

| — | The Tribunal should order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Tribunal should order OHIM to pay the costs.

---