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 62010TN0044

Case T-44/10 P: Appeal brought on 3 February 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 November 2009 in Case F-11/09, Marcuccio v Commission

OJ C 80, 27.3.2010, p. 43–44 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

27.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/43


Appeal brought on 3 February 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 November 2009 in Case F-11/09, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-44/10 P)

2010/C 80/69

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal.

Declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was admissible in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever.

Allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance.

Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings.

In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 25 November 2009. That order dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded an action brought against the Commission’s refusal to assume responsibility for 100 % of the appellant’s medical expenses.

In support of his claims, the appellant alleges misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle that reasons must be given for a decision of an institution of the European Union, the concept of additional reasoning for a decision and the legal principles relating to the taking and assessment of evidence.

The appellant also alleges misinterpretation and misapplication of the concepts of a challengeable act and a decision which merely confirms an earlier decision.


Top