Case T-278/07 P: Appeal brought on 18 July 2007 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 May 2007 in Case F-2/06, Luigi Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, administrative procedure, appeal, occupational accident, regulations for civil servants, social-security benefit

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/55

— Lastly,

in the

the Commission's
applicant's opinion,
reasoning is vitiated by an error of
law relating to the
characteristics of the procedure of imposing public service
obligations. In that respect, the applicant submits that appli-
cation of a non-mandatory term would have the effect of
prolonging indefinitely the ‘first phase’ of the procedure,
which is illogical, and inconsistent with the declaration of
the Commission itself to the effect that the procedure for
imposition of public service obligations, while unitary,
consists of two phases.

Action brought on 23 July 2007 — Martin v Parliament

(Case T-276/07)

(2007/C 211/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Petter Martin (Vienna, Austria) (represented by:
É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Pleas in law and main arguments

in his capacity as Member of

Following an investigation concerning the secretarial allowances
granted to the applicant
the
European Parliament, the OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office)
drew up a report finding certain irregularities. On the basis of
that report, the Secretary-General of the European Parliament
adopted the contested decision of 10 May 2007, by which it
decided that the sums which had been paid unduly to the appli-
cant were to be reimbursed by him pursuant to Article 27(3) of
the Rules governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to
Members of the European Parliament.

The applicant relies on four pleas in law in support of his
action.

The first plea alleges incorrect and inaccurate application of the
Rules governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to
Members of the European Parliament, in particular Articles 14
and 27(3) thereof.

The second plea alleges an error of assessment as to the rele-
vance of the supporting documents provided by the applicant.

Moreover, the applicant relies on a plea alleging infringement of
Council Regulation No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the
Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities (1) and infringement of the principles of
proportionality and non-discrimination.

Lastly, the applicant puts forward a plea alleging breach of the
principle audi alteram partem and of the rights of the defence.

Defendant: European Parliament

(1) OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 10 May 2007 taken by the Secretary-
General of the European Parliament, notified on 14 May
2007, according to which it was decided that a certain sum
had been paid unduly to the applicant and that, pursuant to
Article 27(3) of
the Rules governing the Payment of
the European
Expenses and Allowances to Members of
Parliament, that sum was to be recovered from the appli-
cant;

— If necessary, annul the decision of 13 June 2007 originating
from the Director-General of
for
Finance of the European Parliament, taken pursuant to the
decision of 10 May 2007, putting the applicant on formal
notice to pay the aforementioned amounts or to propose a
written clearance plan accepted by the Parliament within
30 days of that decision;

the Directorate-General

— Annul,

if necessary and where applicable, all decisions
implementing the aforementioned decisions which might
arise in the course of the proceedings;

Appeal brought on 18 July 2007 by Luigi Marcuccio against
the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 May 2007 in
Case F-2/06, Luigi Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-278/07 P)

(2007/C 211/103)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
Cipressa, avvocato)

Italy)

(represented by G.

— In any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

C 211/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2007

Forms of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— lastly, the appellant maintains that the order under appeal is
vitiated by a complete failure to state reasons, as well as by
the incorrect and misconceived application of the notion of
a decision adversely affecting the applicant's interests.

— in any event, set aside the order under appeal in its entirety;

— uphold the forms of order sought by the applicant at first

instance;

— order

the Commission to reimburse all costs,

fees and
charges incurred by the appellant for the purposes of these
proceedings;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service

Tribunal for judgment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 23 July 2007 — France v Commission

(Case T-279/07)

(2007/C 211/104)

Language of the case: French

By the present appeal, it is sought to have set aside the order of
the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 May 2007 in Case F-2/06
Marcuccio v Commission, dismissing as inadmissible the action
brought by the applicant.

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de
Bergues, L. Butel and S. Ramet, acting as Agents)

Parties

The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

first

instance. On that point,

— the Civil Service Tribunal distorted the clear sense of the
facts and of the statements made by the applicant in his
written pleadings at
is
emphasised in particular that the physical existence of the
decision at issue in the proceedings at first instance is clear
without a shadow of a doubt from the text of the Commis-
sion's note of 29 July 2005, which provides for the possibi-
lity of reopening at any given moment a file that had been
shelved. The reference to that possibility leaves no doubt,
not only that the decision at issue had actually been taken,
but also that it had actually been carried out;

it

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— it is an error in law for a court to make an order ruling that
an action is manifestly inadmissible — a fortiori on grounds
of public policy such as the absence of any act adversely
affecting the interests of the applicant in the case of an
action for annulment — following an attempt to reach an
amicable settlement, and all the more so when no specific
grounds, directly related to the facts of the case, are stated
for so doing;

— the appellant's rights of defence were irreparably damaged in
that, not having been informed of the progress of the case,
he was unable to do anything to strengthen his defence of
his own reasons. On that point, it is maintained that the
note by which the Civil Service Tribunal informed the appel-
lant of the implementation of the attempt at settlement was
not
in
followed by any other communication, whether
writing or in any other form, concerning the progress of the
case, far less concerning the outcome of the attempt to
reach an amicable settlement. Furthermore, the Civil Service
Tribunal made the order under appeal more than six
months after that attempt. As if that were not enough, there
is no mention in the order under appeal of the attempt to
reach an amicable settlement;

the applicant

By the present action,
seeks annulment of
Commission Decision C(2007) 2110 Final of 10 May 2007
declaring incompatible with Article 86(1) EC, read together with
Articles 43 and 49 EC, the provisions of the French Code Moné-
taire et Financier, which provides for special rights for three
credit
les Caisses
d'Épargne et de Prévoyance and the Crédit Mutuel, for the distri-
bution of the Livret A and Livret Bleu.

institutions, namely the Banque Postale,

It relies on five pleas in law in support of its action.

The first plea alleges breach of the rights of the defence and
disregard of the principle audi alteram partem.

Second, the applicant claims that the Commission made a mani-
fest error of assessment in finding that the special rights in ques-
tion constituted an obstacle to freedom of establishment and,
consequently, were incompatible with Article 43 EC, without
having demonstrated that those rights were not necessary and
proportionate having regard to the overriding reasons of public
interest, namely the objectives of access to housing and accessi-
bility of banking services.