2

The background to the dispute is set out in the following terms in paragraphs 13 to 29 of the judgment under appeal: ‘13 The applicant took up a post at [EUIPO] on 16 July 2001 and, from 16 July 2002, held a contract as a member of the temporary staff, on the basis of Article 2(a) of the CEOS then in force, for an initial duration of four years, or in other words until 15 July 2006. … 15 Following his participation in one of the open internal selection procedures in the field of “industrial property”, and having regard to his ranking, the applicant was offered, and accepted, with effect from 1 June 2005, a modifying addendum to his temporary staff contract. Thus, Articles 4 and 5 of that contract were amended and his contract then became a “contract … for an indefinite period with a termination clause” under the new Article 4. 16 Article 5 of the temporary staff contract, as thus amended, provided as follows: “This contract will be terminated in accordance with Article 47 of the [CEOS] in the event that the [temporary staff member’s] name is not included on the reserve list of the next open competition to be organised by [the European Personnel Selection Office] for his function group with specialisation in industrial property. This contract will also be terminated in the event that the [temporary staff member] does not accept an offer of recruitment as an official in his function group which is made to him by [EUIPO] immediately following the publication of the reserve list for that competition. Furthermore, [EUIPO] reserves the right to terminate this contract on any other ground provided for in Articles 47 to 50 of the [CEOS], in accordance with the conditions set out in those articles. If the termination conditions are fulfilled, this contract shall terminate automatically upon expiry of the notice referred to in Article 47(c)(i) of the [CEOS].” … 18 On 19 December 2007, the director of the Human Resources Department of [EUIPO] informed the applicant that open competitions OHIM/AD/02/07 and OHIM/AST/02/07 were among those contemplated by the termination clause in Article 5 of his temporary staff contract, as amended on 1 June 2005. 19 The applicant took part in open competition OHIM/AST/02/07 but [his name] was not included on the reserve list. His contract was terminated by a decision of 12 March 2009, with effect from the evening of 15 September 2009 (the “decision of 12 March 2009”). 20 The applicant filed a complaint against the decision of 12 March 2009. Following the rejection of that complaint, he challenged that decision by way of a group action, brought with 13 other members and former members of the temporary staff of [EUIPO], which was registered at the Tribunal Registry as Case F‑102/09. 21 The group action registered as Case F‑102/09 led to the judgment of 15 September 2011, Bennett and Others v OHIM (F‑102/09, EU:F:2011:138; “the Bennett II judgment”). In that judgment, the Tribunal held, first, that, notwithstanding the wording of Article 4, the applicant’s contract, as modified with effect from 1 June 2005, could not be classified as a contract for an indefinite period, which was characterised by the permanency of the post (the Bennett II judgment, paragraph 86), and secondly, that the amendment made to his temporary staff contract on 1 June 2005 by the insertion of a termination clause had to be construed as being a first renewal of his contract for a fixed period coming within Article 2(a) of the CEOS (the Bennett II judgment, paragraph 120). By the same judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the action in so far as it related to the applicant, and thus did not annul the decision of 12 March 2009. 22 Previously, in another group action registered at the Tribunal Registry as Case F‑19/08, in which the applicant was also a party, and which led to the judgment of 2 July 2009, Bennett and Others v OHIM (F‑19/08, EU:F:2009:75; “the Bennett I judgment”), the Tribunal, after observing that competitions OHIM/AD/02/07 and OHIM/AST/02/07 had been organised, respectively, with a view to the recruitment of only four assistants and one administrator, held in paragraph 116 of that judgment that: “In offering to 31 members of staff who had passed the relevant internal selection procedures a temporary contract for an indefinite period containing a termination clause applicable solely if the staff concerned were not included on a reserve list drawn up following an open competition with specialisation in industrial property, it having been announced by the Executive Director of [EUIPO] himself that such a competition would be held in 2007 or 2008, [EUIPO] was clearly undertaking to retain the staff in question permanently within the institution on condition that they were included on such a reserve list. In those circumstances, by limiting the number of posts to be filled to a total of five, whereas there were [31] members of staff concerned, and by limiting the number of successful candidates entered on the list of suitable candidates drawn up following [competitions OHIM/AD/02/07 and OHIM/AST/02/07] — which, moreover, were open competitions — to the exact number of posts to be filled, [EUIPO] radically and objectively reduced the prospects for those staff, as a whole, to avoid the application of the termination clause and, therefore, rendered partly meaningless the scope of its contractual undertakings vis-à-vis its temporary staff.” … 25 Following the Bennett I and Bennett II judgments, on 1 December 2011 [EUIPO] and the applicant signed a “reinstatement protocol” (the “reinstatement protocol”) providing for the applicant to be “reinstated” in his position under the temporary staff contract, as amended on 1 June 2005, with Article 5 of the contract remaining unchanged and Article 4 being deleted; by that protocol, [EUIPO] effectively reinstated the applicant in his post as from 1 December 2011. … 27 On 28 November 2013, the Executive Director of [EUIPO] informed the applicant that, following the publication of the notice for the competition at issue, “the [termination clause in Article 5 of his temporary staff contract] would be considered [to be engaged] if [his] name [did] not appear … on the reserve list[s] of … [open competitions OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13]”. 28 The applicant took part in open competition OHIM/AST/02/13 (“the competition at issue”), but [his name] was not included on the reserve list. His temporary staff contract was terminated by decision of 4 June 2014, taking effect on the expiry of six months’ notice running from that day, that is to say, on 3 December 2014 (the “contested decision”). 29 The applicant brought a complaint against the contested decision on 4 September 2014, which complaint was rejected on 12 January 2015.’