Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:531
Date: 2018-07-05
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Arbitration clause;Action for damages;Appeal - successful

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 5 July 2018 1. Appeal — Subject-matter — Decision of the General Court — Concept — Service of the appeal on the other parties to the proceedings before the General Court (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 171) 2. Judicial proceedings — General Court seised under an arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Contractual relationship based on consecutive fixed-term contracts — Claim that all the contractual relationships should be recategorised as a contract of indefinite duration and for compensation for unfair dismissal — Arbitration clauses conferring jurisdiction, in the final contract, on the Courts of the European Union, and, in the previous contracts, on the courts of a Member State — Contractual relationships prior to the final contract to be taken into account (Art. 272 TFEU) 3. Appeal — Appeal held to be well founded — Judgment to be given on the substance by the appeal court — Condition — Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given — Concept (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 61, first para.) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 12, 19) 2. The General Court may hear and determine only claims arising from the contract concluded with the European Union which contains the arbitration clause, or claims that are directly connected with the obligations arising from that contract. In that regard, it is common ground that all the previous employment contracts concluded between the appellant and his employers contain a clause that expressly provides that disputes arising from, or relating to, those contracts will be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State and that only the final fixed-term contract expressly provides that disputes arising from, or relating, that contract will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice under Article 272 TFEU. It is clear that, as the application was lodged on the basis of Article 272 TFEU, the General Court has jurisdiction, in principle, to hear and determine only the claims arising from the final contract or which are directly connected with that contract. As the appellant’s claims that all his contractual relationships should be recategorised as a contract of indefinite duration and that he should be granted the rights which may follow as a result of such recategorisation are are linked to the existence of a single employment relationship based on a series of consecutive fixed-term contracts, they are directed at the recategorisation of all the contracts concluded and are based on all of those contracts, including the final contract. (see paras 40, 42, 43, 46, 47) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 53, 55, 56)