CELEX: 62017CN0043
Language: en
Date: 2017-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-43/17 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2017 by Liam Jenkinson against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 November 2016 in Case T-602/15 Liam Jenkinson v European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo

3.4.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 104/36
            
         Appeal brought on 25 January 2017 by Liam Jenkinson against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 November 2016 in Case T-602/15 Liam Jenkinson v European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo
   
   (Case C-43/17 P)
   (2017/C 104/52)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Liam Jenkinson (represented by: N. de Montigny, J.-N. Louis, avocats)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the order of the General Court of 9 November 2016 in Case T-602/15 in so far as it dismisses the action brought by the appellant and orders him to pay the costs of the proceedings;
            
         
               —
            
            
               adjudicate on the action;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendants to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant disputes the General Court’s having declared itself to have jurisdiction in relation only to a dispute based on the latest fixed-term contract signed by the appellant.
   He also disputes, even supposing the General Court’s reasoning in that regard were correct, quod non, the fact that the General Court did not rule on several of his requests based on the termination of the contractual relationship at issue and thus on the latest fixed-term contract. The illegality of the order under appeal is apparent from the conciseness of the reasoning, which is so succinct that it does not make it possible to understand how the General Court could, without analysing the merits of the case, conclude that it had no jurisdiction, with the exception of the dispute relating to the latest fixed term contract, solely on the basis of the existence of an arbitration clause even though the appellant disputed the validity and legality of such a clause.
   The appellant also disputes the failure to take into account his entire argument as to the existence of wrongful conduct on the part of the institutions relating to the lack of legal framework offering the applicant and all the personnel of rule of law missions established by the Union guarantees that their most fundamental social rights will be respected, including the right of effective access to a court and right to a fair trial.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant consequently invokes the General Court’s infringement:
   
               —
            
            
               of applicable EU law for the determination of the law applicable to contractual disputes;
            
         
               —
            
            
               of provisions of Belgian employment law;
            
         
               —
            
            
               of minimum requirements on fixed-term work applicable at Community level;
            
         
               —
            
            
               of the rights enshrined by the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
            
         
               —
            
            
               of the obligation to state reasons;
            
         
               —
            
            
               of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita.