# C_2015127EN.01003301.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/33 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Appeal brought on 19 February 2015 by Luigi Macchia against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2014 in Case F-63/11 RENV, Macchia v Commission

(Case T-80/15 P)

(2015/C 127/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Macchia (Rome, Italy) (represented by S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment of the CST of 12 December 2014 in case F-63/11 RENV; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | accordingly, grant the applicant the relief sought at first instance; and therefore:
—
declare the application admissible; —
principally:
—
annul the implied decision adopted on 12 August 2010 by the Director General of OLAF, in his capacity as AECE, not to renew the appellant’s contract, as is clear, in particular, from the lack of response to the request that the appellant had sent him on 12 April 2010; —
in so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted on 22 February 2011 by the AECE, dismissing the complaint brought by the defendant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; —
accordingly, reinstate the appellant in the functions which he performed within OLAF, in the context of a prolongation of his contract in accordance with the statutory requirements; —
in the alternative, and if the request for reinstatement set out above is not granted, order the Commission to compensate for the material damage sustained by the defendant, assessed provisionally and ex aequo et bono as the difference between the salary the appellant would have received as a temporary agent at OLAF and that relating to the post he currently occupies (approximately EUR 3  000 per month) for at least a period similar to that of his initial contract (4 years), and longer if that contract had been renewed a third time, giving him the right to a permanent contract; —
in any event, order the Commission to pay a sum provisionally fixed and ex aequo et bono of EUR 5  000 (five thousand euros) as compensation for non-material damage together with default interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered; | — | declare the application admissible; | — | principally:
—
annul the implied decision adopted on 12 August 2010 by the Director General of OLAF, in his capacity as AECE, not to renew the appellant’s contract, as is clear, in particular, from the lack of response to the request that the appellant had sent him on 12 April 2010; —
in so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted on 22 February 2011 by the AECE, dismissing the complaint brought by the defendant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; —
accordingly, reinstate the appellant in the functions which he performed within OLAF, in the context of a prolongation of his contract in accordance with the statutory requirements; | — | annul the implied decision adopted on 12 August 2010 by the Director General of OLAF, in his capacity as AECE, not to renew the appellant’s contract, as is clear, in particular, from the lack of response to the request that the appellant had sent him on 12 April 2010; | — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted on 22 February 2011 by the AECE, dismissing the complaint brought by the defendant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; | — | accordingly, reinstate the appellant in the functions which he performed within OLAF, in the context of a prolongation of his contract in accordance with the statutory requirements; | — | in the alternative, and if the request for reinstatement set out above is not granted, order the Commission to compensate for the material damage sustained by the defendant, assessed provisionally and ex aequo et bono as the difference between the salary the appellant would have received as a temporary agent at OLAF and that relating to the post he currently occupies (approximately EUR 3  000 per month) for at least a period similar to that of his initial contract (4 years), and longer if that contract had been renewed a third time, giving him the right to a permanent contract; | — | in any event, order the Commission to pay a sum provisionally fixed and ex aequo et bono of EUR 5  000 (five thousand euros) as compensation for non-material damage together with default interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered; |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | declare the application admissible; | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | principally:
—
annul the implied decision adopted on 12 August 2010 by the Director General of OLAF, in his capacity as AECE, not to renew the appellant’s contract, as is clear, in particular, from the lack of response to the request that the appellant had sent him on 12 April 2010; —
in so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted on 22 February 2011 by the AECE, dismissing the complaint brought by the defendant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; —
accordingly, reinstate the appellant in the functions which he performed within OLAF, in the context of a prolongation of his contract in accordance with the statutory requirements; | — | annul the implied decision adopted on 12 August 2010 by the Director General of OLAF, in his capacity as AECE, not to renew the appellant’s contract, as is clear, in particular, from the lack of response to the request that the appellant had sent him on 12 April 2010; | — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted on 22 February 2011 by the AECE, dismissing the complaint brought by the defendant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; | — | accordingly, reinstate the appellant in the functions which he performed within OLAF, in the context of a prolongation of his contract in accordance with the statutory requirements; | | | | | | | | |
| — | annul the implied decision adopted on 12 August 2010 by the Director General of OLAF, in his capacity as AECE, not to renew the appellant’s contract, as is clear, in particular, from the lack of response to the request that the appellant had sent him on 12 April 2010; | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | in so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted on 22 February 2011 by the AECE, dismissing the complaint brought by the defendant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | accordingly, reinstate the appellant in the functions which he performed within OLAF, in the context of a prolongation of his contract in accordance with the statutory requirements; | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | in the alternative, and if the request for reinstatement set out above is not granted, order the Commission to compensate for the material damage sustained by the defendant, assessed provisionally and ex aequo et bono as the difference between the salary the appellant would have received as a temporary agent at OLAF and that relating to the post he currently occupies (approximately EUR 3  000 per month) for at least a period similar to that of his initial contract (4 years), and longer if that contract had been renewed a third time, giving him the right to a permanent contract; | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | in any event, order the Commission to pay a sum provisionally fixed and ex aequo et bono of EUR 5  000 (five thousand euros) as compensation for non-material damage together with default interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered; | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs, including those of the present appeal. |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law alleging an infringement of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, alleging that the CST exceeded the scope of its powers of judicial review, breach of the duty to state reasons, distortion of the facts of the case and substantive inaccuracies in the findings in the documents in the file by the CST.

---