Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62009TN0166

Case T-166/09 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 February 2009 in Case F-70/07, Marcuccio v Commission

OJ C 141, 20.6.2009, p. 56–57 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

20.6.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/56


Appeal brought on 27 April 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 February 2009 in Case F-70/07, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-166/09 P)

2009/C 141/114

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

set aside in its entirety, without any exception whatsoever, the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 February 2009 in Case F-70/07;

declare that the action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal in respect of which the order under appeal was made was perfectly admissible in its entirety, without any exception whatsoever;

in so far as may be necessary, declare that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law by categorising certain forms of order sought in the application as an application for payment of the costs (see paragraph 16 of the order under appeal);

in so far as may be necessary, declare that the Civil Service Tribunal had jurisdiction, as a court of first instance, to rule on every aspect, without exception, of the forms of order sought by the appellant in the proceedings in Case F-70/07;

and

uphold, in their entirety, without any exception whatsoever, the forms of order sought, which, for all legal intents and purposes, are to be deemed to be reproduced in the present application;

order the Commission to reimburse the appellant all costs, fees and other expenses incurred by the latter in connection with the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal, together with the costs incurred by the appellant in the present appeal proceedings;

or, in the lesser alternative:

refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a decision on the merits, to be taken by that Tribunal sitting in a different formation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his claims, the appellant alleges:

unlawfulness of the part reference to the Court of First Instance of the case under appeal, inter alia through the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 90 of the Regulations and Rules applicable to officials and other servants of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’), and total failure to state reasons;

breach, misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle of the court with jurisdiction under the law and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’);

unlawfulness of the dismissal, on grounds of inadmissibility, of the forms of order other than those in respect of which the Civil Service Tribunal declared that it lacked jurisdiction to make a ruling, inter alia through the misinterpretation and misinterpretation of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations and of the concept of claims for compensation which are ancillary to an action for the annulment of a decision by a Community institution, and total failure to state reasons and distortion of the evidence;

procedural errors capable of seriously compromising the interests of the appellant, through failure to comply with the obligation to discount the content of the document referred to in paragraph 11 of the order under appeal in so far as that document had been submitted out of time, and through the request that the parties produce extraordinary documents and the subsequent inclusion of those documents in the case-file for the proceedings at first instance, in that this was capable of seriously compromising the interests of the appellant;

breach of the rules governing due process; infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 47 of the Charter.


Top