Case F-18/07: Action brought on 10 July 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2007-09-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, illness, regulations for civil servants, social security

C 223/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.9.2007

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

Action brought on 11 July 2007 — Marcuccio v
Commission

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case F-133/06)

(2007/C 223/32)

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

— declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative,
annul the decision rejecting the applicant's application of
31 August 2005 to the Appointing Authority for
the
restoration to him of the property which was formerly situ-
ated at the accommodation provided to him by his employer
in Angola and which was wrongfully seized by the Commis-
sion;

— declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative,
annul
the
Appointing Authority of 20 July 2006 rejecting the appli-
cant's complaint against the contested decision;

is necessary the decision of

in so far as

In support of his arguments,
following three pleas in law:

the applicant

relies on the

(1) absolute failure to state reasons, also on the basis that the
reasons put forward by the defendant are illogical, inconsis-
tent, confusing and in the nature of a pretext;

(2) serious and manifest 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.

Action brought on 10 July 2007 — Marcuccio v
Commission

(Case F-18/07)

(2007/C 223/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

— order the defendant to restore the applicant's property to

him;

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
Cipressa, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by: G.

— order

the defendant

to pay the applicant

the sum of
EUR 1 000 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may
consider just and equitable, by way of compensation for the
damage to the applicant deriving from the contested deci-
sion from the date of the request of 31 August 2005 or, in
the alternative, from the date of the contested decision to
the present date;

— 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 request of
31 August 2005 is implemented by the defendant, the sum
of EUR 300 or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider
just and equitable, to be paid on the first day of each month
in respect of rights accrued during the previous month, by
way of compensation for the damage deriving from the
contested decision and arising in the abovementioned
period;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of 25 October 2005 issued by the Joint
Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities
by which the defendant rejected the claim of 11 October
2005 brought by the applicant for recognition within the
meaning and for the purposes of Article 72 of the Staff
Regulations and the Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials
of the European Communities; that he has a serious illness

— annul,

is necessary,

in so far as

the
the decision of
ref.
Appointing Authority of 30 November 2005,
ADMIN.B.2/MB/nb D(06) 27556,
the
in part,
complaint dated 23 August 2006 brought by the applicant
against and for the annulment of the contested decision;

rejecting,

22.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/19

— declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative,
annul, in so far as is necessary and if it actually exists, which
is uncertain at this stage, the alleged opinion of the relevant
medical board referred to in the note dated 30 November
2006, the details of which are unknown to the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1) absolute failure to state reasons, also on the basis that the
grounds put forward by the defendant are illogical, inconsis-
tent, tautologous, confused, show a failure to make preli-
minary inquiries and are in the nature of a pretext;

(2) manifest error of assessment and 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 decision of the Appointing Authority in response to the
claim of 7 August 2006, which has essentially the same
purpose as the present action;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant, by way of reimbur-
sement of the additional sum needed to make up 100 %
reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him and
in respect of which he claimed reimbursement from the
Joint Scheme in the claim of 31 March 2006, the difference
between the sum of EUR 720,45 paid by the applicant and
the sum of EUR 396,36 actually reimbursed to him, or
other such sum as the Tribunal may consider just and equi-
table in that regard, such sum to earn interest from 8 April
2006 at the rate of 10 % per annum to be compounded
annually, or at the rate to be compounded and from the
starting date which the Tribunal may consider just;

— order the defendant, in so far as is necessary, to pay the
applicant the sum that he is due but has not received, within
the meaning and for the purposes of point 4 of Article XV
of Annex I to the Rules, in relation to the medical examina-
tion carried out on 28 September 2005, such sum to earn
interest from 4 April 2006 at the rate of 10 % per annum
to be
to be
compounded and from the starting date which the Tribunal
may consider just;

compounded annually, or

rate

the

at

Action brought on 27 June 2007 — Marcuccio v
Commission

(Case F-20/07)

(2007/C 223/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is brought as a result of the defendant's refusal to
pay the applicant the additional sum needed to make up 100 %
reimbursement of certain medical expenses incurred by him and
to apply point 4 of Article XV of Annex I to the Rules on sick-
ness insurance for officials of the European Communities to the
determination of the reimbursement in respect of a medical
examination carried out on 28 September 2005.

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
Cipressa, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by: G.

In support of his arguments,
following three pleas in law:

the applicant

relies on the

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision rejecting the
claim of 31 March 2006, submitted on 4 April 2006, in so
far as that decision concerns the applicant's claim that point
4 of Article XV of Annex I to the Rules on sickness insur-
ance for officials of the European Communities (‘the Rules’)
should apply to the determination and subsequent reimbur-
sement in respect of a medical examination carried out on
28 September 2005;

— annul the decision rejecting the claim of 31 March 2006;

— annul,

in so far as is necessary, Calculation No 58, List

No 30001052, of 24 May 2006;

— annul,

in so far as is necessary, Note ADMIN.B.2/MB/nb
D(06) 27556 of 30 November 2006 containing, inter alia,

(1) absolute failure to state grounds also by reason of a total
failure to make preliminary inquiries, inasmuch as it cannot
be understood why the defendant refused the applicant's
claims in the manner referred to above;

(2) manifest error of assessment and infringement of the law on
the basis that the applicant's medical condition was such as
to give rise, within the meaning and for the purposes of
Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to a right on his part to
100 % reimbursement of medical expenses;

(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
are gravely unlawful.