Case F-70/07: Action brought on 23 July 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2007-09-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, access to information, action by staff, medical data, redemption

C 223/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.9.2007

Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Marcuccio v
Commission

(Case F-21/07)

(2007/C 223/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
Cipressa, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by: G.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the implied decision (‘the contested decision’) rejecting
the application of 30 December 2005 submitted by the
applicant on 17 January 2006;

— annul,

in so far as

the
is necessary,
Appointing Authority dated 15 November 2006 rejecting
the applicant's complaint against the contested decision;

the decision of

— order the defendant to pay the applicant the compensation
requested in the application of 30 December 2005, namely
the sum of EUR 100 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal
may consider just and equitable;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant the additional sum
of EUR 50 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may
consider just and equitable, by way of compensation for the
damage suffered after the date of the said application;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant default interest at
the rate of 10 % per annum, to be compounded annually
from the date of the application of 30 December 2005 until
actual payment
the notes
complained of have been completely destroyed, or at the
rate to be compounded and from the starting date which
the Tribunal may consider just and equitable, on the sum of
EUR 100 000 or such other sum as the Tribunal may
consider just and equitable;

and, more generally, until

— order the defendant to destroy, without any further delay,
the originals and all copies of the note of 20 February
2001, prot. 951883, the note of 15 November 2006 and,
lastly, if it exists, the letter of 20 July 2006 to which the
defendant refers in the note dated 15 November 2006;

— order the defendants to notify the applicant when physical
destruction has taken place, specifying in accordance with
formal requirements, in respect of each document destroyed,
the place in which it was located prior to destruction and all
the facts relating to the time, place and act of physical
destruction, in particular the date, place and person carrying
out the same;

— order

the defendant

the sum of
EUR 100, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider
just and equitable, for each day's delay in destroying the

to pay the applicant

documents, from the date of the judgment to be delivered
until
the applicant has actually been that notified that
physical destruction has taken place, payable on the first day
of each month in relation to rights accrued in that respect
in the preceding month;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present case arises out of a number of statements contained
in several notes attributable to the defendant,
from which,
according to the applicant, unlawful acts, deeds and conduct in
relation to the processing of sensitive information concerning
the applicant may be inferred.

In support of his claims, the applicant relies on the following
three pleas in law:

(1) failure to state reasons in so far as, on the one hand, the
applicant's application was rejected only by implication and,
on the other, the reasons provided by the defendant in the
note of 15 November are inconsistent, illogical and in the
nature of a pretext;

(2) infringement of the law, since the applicant satisfies the
conditions for entitlement
to compensation for damage
sought in his application of 30 December 2005, namely:
unlawful acts, deeds and conduct on the part of the defen-
dant; the occurrence of damage to the applicant; a causal
connection between the damage alleged and the conduct
complained of;

(3) breach of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of
officials and of the principle of sound administration, given
that the defendant failed to have due regard to the appli-
cant's interests and did several acts and related deeds which,
as a result of their grave unlawfulness and the considerable
period of time during which they were committed, consti-
tuted a breach of that obligation and principle.

Action brought on 23 July 2007 — Marcuccio v
Commission

(Case F-70/07)

(2007/C 223/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
Cipressa, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by: G.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

22.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/21

Form of order sought

Action brought on 3 July 2007 — Stefan Meierhofer v
Commission

— annul the decision (‘the contested decision’),

in whatever
form, by which the defendant rejected the applicant's appli-
cation of 22 June 2006 that the Commission pay to him
that part of the costs incurred by him in Case T-176/04
Marcuccio v Commission (1) already decided before the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities, which the
defendant was ordered to pay by order of 6 March 2006;

(Case F-74/07)

(2007/C 223/37)

Language of the case: German

— annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision,
complaint

rejecting the

applicant's

form,
contested decision;

in whatever
the
against

— order

the defendant

to pay the applicant

the sum of
EUR 6 347,67, plus default interest thereon, appreciation, at
the total rate of 10 % per annum to be compounded
annually, from the date of the application of 22 June 2006
to the present, by way of compensation for the material
damage caused to the applicant by the contested decision;

— order

the defendant

to pay the applicant

the sum of
EUR 1 000 by way of compensation for the loss of opportu-
nity of which the applicant could have taken advantage if
the sum due to him had been made available in due time;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant pro bono et ex aequo
the sum of EUR 3 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal
may consider just and equitable, by way of compensation
for the non-material damage sustained by the applicant,
including damage to his quality of life, by the contested deci-
sion;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant, in respect of each
day from the present date until the date on which each deci-
sion granting fully and unconditionally the application dated
22 June 2006 is implemented by the defendant, the sum of
EUR 2, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just
and equitable, payable on the first day of each month in
respect of rights accrued during the previous month, by way
of compensation for the damage arising as a result of any
delay in implementing the decision granting the application;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Parties

Applicant: Stefan Meierhofer (Munich, Germany) (represented by:
H.-G. Schiessl, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the defendant's decision of 10 May 2007

concerning the applicant;

— Annulment of the defendant's appeal decision of 19 June

2007;

— Order the defendant to reassess in the light of the current
assessment criteria the oral examination taken by the appli-
cant on 29 March 2007;

— Order the defendant to take a new decision on the appli-
cant's inclusion on the reserve list for recruitment competi-
tion AD/26/05 in the light of the new examination results;

— Order the defendant to give reasons for is new decisions;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

relies on the
In support of his arguments,
following three pleas in law: (1) absolute failure to state reasons;
(2) infringement of the law; (3) breach of the obligation to have
due regard to the welfare of officials and of the principle of
sound administration.

the applicant

(1) OJ C 121, 20.05.2006, p. 12. As a result of a clerical error, the

applicant refers to Case T-176/03 instead of Case T-176/04.

The applicant participated in EU recruitment competition
AD/26/05 (AD5 officials). On completion of the examination
the applicant was notified by the examination board that he had
not been placed on the reserve list as he had not obtained the
mark required.

The applicant claims that insufficient reasons were given for the
Commission's decision not to place him on the reserve list and
claims that procedural errors occurred during the oral examina-
tion.