Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 4.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/45 |

---

Appeal brought on 12 May 2016 by José Luis Ruiz Molina against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 March 2016 in Case F-60/15, Ruiz Molina v OHIM

(Case T-233/16 P)

(2016/C 243/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: José Luis Ruiz Molina (San Juan de Alicante, Spain) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and S. Michiels, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 2 March 2016 in Case F-60/15; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the respondent to the appeal to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings in their entirety. |

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the principle of res judicata attaching to the judgment of 15 September 2011 in Bennett and Others v OHIM, F-102/09, EU:F:2011:138. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP ([OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:L:1999:175:TOC)) which implemented the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999 between the general cross-industry organisations, and infringement of well established principles and standards of international social and labour law on stable employment. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | Fourth ground of appeal, alleging failure to state reasons for the judgment under appeal. |

---

[Top](#document1)