# C_2006131EN.01005401.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/54

---

Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-41/06)

(2006/C 131/98)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: L. Garofalo, professor and lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Commission of 30 May 2005, by which the applicant was retired and granted an invalidity allowance established in accordance with Article 78(3) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Commission of 30 May 2005, by which the applicant was retired and granted an invalidity allowance established in accordance with Article 78(3) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | Annul the decision of the Commission of 16 December 2005, notified on 20 January 2006, which rejected the applicant's complaint against the decision of 30 May 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Commission of 16 December 2005, notified on 20 January 2006, which rejected the applicant's complaint against the decision of 30 May 2005;

| — | Annul a whole series of measures connected to the abovementioned decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul a whole series of measures connected to the abovementioned decision;

| — | Order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the material, non-material and substantial damage sustained, together with interest at the statutory rate; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the material, non-material and substantial damage sustained, together with interest at the statutory rate;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the decision to retire him on account of permanent invalidity, and a series of measures connected to that decision.

He submits that the contested decisions are unlawful on account of:

| — | Total failure to state adequate grounds, inter alia by stating tautologous, inconsistent and incoherent reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

Total failure to state adequate grounds, inter alia by stating tautologous, inconsistent and incoherent reasons;

| — | Infringement of the right to a fair hearing and of Article 9 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the right to a fair hearing and of Article 9 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations;

| — | Procedural errors, infringements of laws and infringement of substantive rules; |
| --- | --- |

—

Procedural errors, infringements of laws and infringement of substantive rules;

| — | Infringement of the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff and of the duty of sound administration; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff and of the duty of sound administration;

| — | Misuse of power and of the principle of not causing harm to others. |
| --- | --- |

—

Misuse of power and of the principle of not causing harm to others.

---