# C_2008171EN.01004502.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/45

---

Appeal brought on 15 May 2008 by Giuseppe Tiralongo against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 6 March 2008 in Case F-55/07, Tiralongo v Commission

(Case T-180/08 P)

(2008/C 171/86)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Giuseppe Tiralongo (Ladispoli, Italy) (represented by F. Sciaudone, lawyer, R. Sciaudone, lawyer, and S. Frazzani, 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 contested order of 6 March 2008 in Case F-55/07, and refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for it to rule on the substance of the case in the light of the guidance which the Court of First Instance sees fit to provide; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested order of 6 March 2008 in Case F-55/07, and refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for it to rule on the substance of the case in the light of the guidance which the Court of First Instance sees fit to provide;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those of Case F-55/07. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those of Case F-55/07.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its forms of order sought, the applicant claims:

| — | misapplication of the case law relating to the independence of legal remedies. In particular, the court of first instance misapplied the principles of case-law referring to compensation for damage caused by unlawful acts to a case in which, on the other hand, the harm was caused by unlawful conduct; |
| --- | --- |

—

misapplication of the case law relating to the independence of legal remedies. In particular, the court of first instance misapplied the principles of case-law referring to compensation for damage caused by unlawful acts to a case in which, on the other hand, the harm was caused by unlawful conduct;

| — | failure to state the reasons for the contested order inasmuch it is expressly states that the three claims of unlawfulness complained of by the applicant with regard to the conduct of the Commission concern, in fact, the unlawfulness of some acts; |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to state the reasons for the contested order inasmuch it is expressly states that the three claims of unlawfulness complained of by the applicant with regard to the conduct of the Commission concern, in fact, the unlawfulness of some acts;

| — | misinterpretation of the case-law relating to the independence of legal remedies. In particular, the court at first instance was wrong to hold that the principle of the independence of remedies could have no effect in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

misinterpretation of the case-law relating to the independence of legal remedies. In particular, the court at first instance was wrong to hold that the principle of the independence of remedies could have no effect in the present case;

| — | failure to state reasons for the application for compensation for non-material damage. Regarding the many arguments comprehensively set out by the applicant to show the link between the non-material damage and the Commission's conduct, there is nothing in the contested order which makes it possible to understand the reasons on the basis of which those arguments were rejected. |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to state reasons for the application for compensation for non-material damage. Regarding the many arguments comprehensively set out by the applicant to show the link between the non-material damage and the Commission's conduct, there is nothing in the contested order which makes it possible to understand the reasons on the basis of which those arguments were rejected.

---