# C_2007223EN.01001802.xml

| 22.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/18

---

Action brought on 10 July 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-18/07)

(2007/C 223/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of 25 October 2005 issued by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities by which the defendant rejected the claim of 11 October 2005 brought by the applicant for recognition within the meaning and for the purposes of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and the Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities; that he has a serious illness |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 25 October 2005 issued by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities by which the defendant rejected the claim of 11 October 2005 brought by the applicant for recognition within the meaning and for the purposes of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and the Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities; that he has a serious illness

| — | annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority of 30 November 2005, ref. ADMIN.B.2/MB/nb D(06) 27556, rejecting, in part, the complaint dated 23 August 2006 brought by the applicant against and for the annulment of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority of 30 November 2005, ref. ADMIN.B.2/MB/nb D(06) 27556, rejecting, in part, the complaint dated 23 August 2006 brought by the applicant against and for the annulment of the contested decision;

| — | declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul, in so far as is necessary and if it actually exists, which is uncertain at this stage, the alleged opinion of the relevant medical board referred to in the note dated 30 November 2006, the details of which are unknown to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul, in so far as is necessary and if it actually exists, which is uncertain at this stage, the alleged opinion of the relevant medical board referred to in the note dated 30 November 2006, the details of which are unknown to the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his claims, the applicant relies on the following three pleas in law:

| (1) | absolute failure to state reasons, also on the basis that the grounds put forward by the defendant are illogical, inconsistent, tautologous, confused, show a failure to make preliminary inquiries and are in the nature of a pretext; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

absolute failure to state reasons, also on the basis that the grounds put forward by the defendant are illogical, inconsistent, tautologous, confused, show a failure to make preliminary inquiries and are in the nature of a pretext;

| (2) | manifest error of assessment and infringement of the law; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

manifest error of assessment and infringement of the law;

| (3) | breach of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

breach of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration.

---