# C_2008079EN.01003202.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/32

---

Appeal brought on 28 January 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 6 December 2007 in Case F-40/06, Marcuccio v Commission

Marcuccio

Commission

(Case T-46/08 P)

(2008/C 79/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | annul the order delivered on 6 December 2007 in Case F-40/06 Marcuccio v Commission of the First Chamber of the Public Service Tribunal of the European Union insofar as (a) the action brought by the applicant at first instance was dismissed on grounds other than absence of legal interest in bringing proceedings; (b) the applicant's claims to obtain compensation in respect of the damage (‘the damage in question’) arising from the facts in the case were rejected; and (c) the applicant was ordered to pay the defendant's costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the order delivered on 6 December 2007 in Case F-40/06 Marcuccio v Commission of the First Chamber of the Public Service Tribunal of the European Union insofar as (a) the action brought by the applicant at first instance was dismissed on grounds other than absence of legal interest in bringing proceedings; (b) the applicant's claims to obtain compensation in respect of the damage (‘the damage in question’) arising from the facts in the case were rejected; and (c) the applicant was ordered to pay the defendant's costs;

Marcuccio

Commission

| — | declare that the action at first instance was admissible, and in particular that the applicant, at the time he brought that action, had a legal interest in bringing proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the action at first instance was admissible, and in particular that the applicant, at the time he brought that action, had a legal interest in bringing proceedings;

| — | uphold the conclusions relating to compensation for the damage in question and order the defendant to pay all the costs borne by the applicant in respect of both the action at first instance and the present appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the conclusions relating to compensation for the damage in question and order the defendant to pay all the costs borne by the applicant in respect of both the action at first instance and the present appeal;

| — | in the alternative, refer the present case back to the Public Service Tribunal for a ruling on: (a) all those parts of the present case on which the court did not rule or which were annulled by the judgment to be made in this appeal; (b) the costs of the action at first instance and of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the present case back to the Public Service Tribunal for a ruling on: (a) all those parts of the present case on which the court did not rule or which were annulled by the judgment to be made in this appeal; (b) the costs of the action at first instance and of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Absolute failure to state reasons and reasons which are, inter alia, manifestly illogical, inconsistent and confused, absence of preliminary enquiries, failure to rule on a fundamental fact of the present case and infringement of the obligation of clare loqui, misrepresentation and distortion of the facts (in particular, paragraphs 10, 12, 26 to 38 inclusive and 42 to 46 inclusive of the contested order).

clare loqui

Erroneous interpretation, misinterpretation and misapplication of the general principles and provisions of law and Community case-law on compensation for damage (in particular, paragraphs 42 to 46 of the contested order).

Manifest lack of logic of the judgment and ruling of the Civil Service Tribunal on costs as well as unreasonableness, absolute failure to state reasons, inconsistency, misrepresentation and distortion of the actual facts, arbitrariness (in particular, paragraphs 49 and 50 of the contested order).

Absolute failure to state the reasons for the decision which is the subject-matter of the complaint in the action at first instance (in particular, paragraphs 26 to 38 inclusive of the contested order).

Misrepresentation and distortion of the facts and related procedural errors which are so serious that they infringe irremediably the rights of the applicant to a defence and infringe essential procedural requirements such as to invalidate irremediably the contested order (in particular, paragraph 24 of the contested order).

Infringement of the rules concerning a fair trial, with particular reference to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (paragraphs 24 and 26 to 38 inclusive of the contested order).

---