# C_2009055EN.01004801.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/48 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Appeal brought on 19 January 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 4 November 2008 in Case F-87/07 Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-16/09 P)

(2009/C 55/86)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | In any event:
A.1
A decision setting aside the order under appeal, in its entirety and without exception. A.2
A declaration that the action at first instance was perfectly admissible. | A.1 | A decision setting aside the order under appeal, in its entirety and without exception. | A.2 | A declaration that the action at first instance was perfectly admissible. |
| --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| A.1 | A decision setting aside the order under appeal, in its entirety and without exception. | | | | |
| A.2 | A declaration that the action at first instance was perfectly admissible. | | | | |

| — | The principal claim:
B.1
The granting in toto and without exception of the appellant's claims at first instance; B.2
an order that the respondent should pay in favour of the appellant all costs, fees and expenses incurred by him both at first instance and on appeal; | B.1 | The granting in toto and without exception of the appellant's claims at first instance; | B.2 | an order that the respondent should pay in favour of the appellant all costs, fees and expenses incurred by him both at first instance and on appeal; |
| --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| B.1 | The granting in toto and without exception of the appellant's claims at first instance; | | | | |
| B.2 | an order that the respondent should pay in favour of the appellant all costs, fees and expenses incurred by him both at first instance and on appeal; | | | | |

| — | or
B.3
refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, so that it may give a fresh decision on the merits of the case. | B.3 | refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, so that it may give a fresh decision on the merits of the case. |
| --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| B.3 | refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, so that it may give a fresh decision on the merits of the case. | | |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision under appeal in this case is the order made by the Civil Service Tribunal on 4 November 2008 in Case T-87/07 Marcuccio v Commission.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-9/09 Marcuccio v Commission.

The appellant claims, in particular, that the Civil Service Tribunal did not rule on a fundamental aspect of the dispute, that is to say, authorisation to produce a note signed by a doctor. He also alleges that the order lacks any reasoning and is illogical in respect of the alleged inadmissibility of the claim for damages, of the claim that the Tribunal should make a declaration establishing the reality of the actions and conduct complained of and, at least incidentally, declare them unlawful, and of the action at first instance as a whole.

---