# C_2012025EN.01006501.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/65

---

Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 September 2011 in Case F-69/10, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-616/11 P)

(2012/C 25/124)

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

| — | Grant all the appellant’s claims in the proceedings at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant all the appellant’s claims in the proceedings at first instance;

| — | Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the appeal proceedings;

| — | In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision on each of the claims referred to in the preceding paragraphs. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision on each of the claims referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of 8 September 2011 in Case T-69/10 dismissing as manifestly unfounded in law an action seeking, first, annulment of the decision by which the Commission rejected the appellant’s claim for compensation for the damage arising, in his view, as a result of the fact that, in the case giving rise to the judgment of 10 June 2008 in Case T-18/04 Marcucio v Commission, a note relating to the payment of the costs of those proceedings was sent to his legal representative in those proceedings and, second, an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage.

The appellant relies on two grounds in support of his appeal.

| 1. | First ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons with regard to the ‘claims seeking compensation’ (between paragraphs 21 and 22 of the order under appeal) and manifest uncertainty, inconsistent reasoning, failure to conduct a proper investigation, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, self-evident, illogical, irrelevant and unreasonable reasoning, incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of the rules of law relating to the incurring of Aquilian liability on the part of the institutions of the European Union, of the concept of the duty to state reasons incumbent on all European Union institutions and the European Union judicature, of the concept of analogy and of the concept of unlawful conduct on the part of a European Union institution. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons with regard to the ‘claims seeking compensation’ (between paragraphs 21 and 22 of the order under appeal) and manifest uncertainty, inconsistent reasoning, failure to conduct a proper investigation, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, self-evident, illogical, irrelevant and unreasonable reasoning, incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of the rules of law relating to the incurring of Aquilian liability on the part of the institutions of the European Union, of the concept of the duty to state reasons incumbent on all European Union institutions and the European Union judicature, of the concept of analogy and of the concept of unlawful conduct on the part of a European Union institution.

| 2. | Second ground, alleging that the rulings of the court at first instance on ‘the costs of the proceedings and legal costs’ (between paragraphs 28 and 29 of the order under appeal) are unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground, alleging that the rulings of the court at first instance on ‘the costs of the proceedings and legal costs’ (between paragraphs 28 and 29 of the order under appeal) are unlawful.

---