# C_2013291EN.01000501.xml

| 5.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/5

---

Appeal brought on 22 August 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2013 in Case F-143/11, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-447/13 P)

2013/C 291/06

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

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

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;

| — | Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 June 2013 dismissing as manifestly inadmissible an action for (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the appellant’s request of 16 August 2011 and for (ii) payment of the sum of EUR 3 316,31 in respect of part of the costs incurred for the purposes of Case F-81/09 Marcuccio v Commission.

Marcuccio

Commission

In support of its claims, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law:

| 1. | Absolute failure to state reasons in the order under appeal, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Absolute failure to state reasons in the order under appeal, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts.

| 2. | Incorrect, false and unreasonable interpretation and application of:






  — | the concept of ‘request’ within the meaning of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Incorrect, false and unreasonable interpretation and application of:

—

the concept of ‘request’ within the meaning of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

| — | Article 91 of those regulations and illogical and unreasoned failure to have regard to the relevant case-law; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 91 of those regulations and illogical and unreasoned failure to have regard to the relevant case-law;

| — | the concept of the obligation on an institution of the European Union to adopt the measures necessary for compliance with a judgment of the Courts of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

the concept of the obligation on an institution of the European Union to adopt the measures necessary for compliance with a judgment of the Courts of the European Union.

| 3. | Absolute failure to carry out any preliminary investigations and to state reasons, and failure to rule on a claim made by the appellant in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Absolute failure to carry out any preliminary investigations and to state reasons, and failure to rule on a claim made by the appellant in the proceedings.

| 4. | Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, and consequently manifest breach of the principle of the court specified by law, referred to, inter alia, in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, and consequently manifest breach of the principle of the court specified by law, referred to, inter alia, in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---