# C_2006096EN.01000401.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/4

---

Appeal brought on 3 February 2006 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment delivered on 24 November 2005 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-236/02 Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-59/06 P)

(2006/C 96/06)

Language of the case: Italian

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2005 in Case T-236/02 Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 February 2006 by Luigi Marcuccio, represented by L. Garofolo, avvocato.

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: L. Garofolo)

Appellant:

The other party to the proceedings before the Court of First Instance: Commission

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal and grant the other forms of order sought by the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal and grant the other forms of order sought by the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment of the Court of First Instance is flawed by reason of:

| 1. | distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and the statements made by the appellant in his written submissions which, in turn, led to substantial inaccuracy in the findings of fact made by the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

1.

distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and the statements made by the appellant in his written submissions which, in turn, led to substantial inaccuracy in the findings of fact made by the Court of First Instance;

| 2. | failure to give a ruling on a number of fundamental issues in the case; |
| --- | --- |

2.

failure to give a ruling on a number of fundamental issues in the case;

| 3. | procedural errors of a serious nature such as to damage irreparably the interests of the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

3.

procedural errors of a serious nature such as to damage irreparably the interests of the appellant;

| 4. | total failure to state grounds concerning a number of vital issues in the case by reason, inter alia, of a failure to make inquiries and the fact that the reasons supposedly put forward by way of justification were confused, inconsistent, inadequate, unreasonable, tautologous, arbitrary, self-evident and illogical as regards both primary and secondary grounds; |
| --- | --- |

4.

total failure to state grounds concerning a number of vital issues in the case by reason, inter alia, of a failure to make inquiries and the fact that the reasons supposedly put forward by way of justification were confused, inconsistent, inadequate, unreasonable, tautologous, arbitrary, self-evident and illogical as regards both primary and secondary grounds;

| 5. | misinterpretation and misapplication of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

5.

misinterpretation and misapplication of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

| 6. | misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of the right to a fair hearing and unconsidered and illogical failure properly to apply the relevant case-law; |
| --- | --- |

6.

misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of the right to a fair hearing and unconsidered and illogical failure properly to apply the relevant case-law;

| 7. | misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of statement of reasons and unconsidered and illogical failure properly to apply the relevant case-law; |
| --- | --- |

7.

misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of statement of reasons and unconsidered and illogical failure properly to apply the relevant case-law;

| 8. | misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept that a statement of reasons should be consistent; |
| --- | --- |

8.

misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept that a statement of reasons should be consistent;

| 9. | misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept that a preparatory measure cannot be challenged; |
| --- | --- |

9.

misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept that a preparatory measure cannot be challenged;

| 10. | misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of an opinion; |
| --- | --- |

10.

misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of an opinion;

| 11. | misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept that a decision that has been issued cannot be amended. |
| --- | --- |

11.

misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept that a decision that has been issued cannot be amended.

---