Case T-114/08 P: Appeal brought on 6 March 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 December 2007 in Case F-21/07, Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2008-03-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appeal, data processing, medical data, personal data

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/41

— Infringement of Article 2 of Regulation No 1258/1999,
since the contested decision is applied in inappropriate
circumstances, given that the irregularities assessed by
the Commission are insufficient.

— Infringement of the provisions of Article 2 of that regu-
lation, and of the Guidelines for the calculation of the
financial consequences on preparing the Decision on the
clearance of accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts
of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6).

(2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the
financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 94, 28.4.1970,
p. 13).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 160, 26.6.1999,
p. 103).

Appeal brought on 6 March 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio
against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered
on 14 December 2007 in Case F-21/07, Marcuccio v
Commission

(Case T-114/08 P)

(2008/C 107/69)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
Cipressa, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by G.

Primarily:

— Grant the claims set out in the action at first instance fully

and unconditionally;

— order the respondent to make reimbursement to the appel-
lant of all the costs, disbursement and fees incurred by him
in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the
instant appeal proceedings.

In the alternative:

— Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, with a

different composition, for a fresh decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:

1. Absolute failure to state reasons, given the failure to dispel
the confusion between the concept of damage and the
concept of the occurrence of an event giving rise to the kind
of damage referred to in the second paragraph of Article 288
(formerly 215) EC.

2. Infringement of Article 288 EC,

the first paragraph of
Article 46 of the Statue of the Court of Justice, Article 90 of
the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Commu-
nities (‘the Staff Regulations’), the principles of legal certainty,
the right to judicial protection and the right to a fair trial.

3. Incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of
the concept of starting date or dies a quo for the purpose of
determining a reasonable period within which to bring an
action under Article 288 EC.

4. Absolute failure to state grounds by reason,

inter alia, of a
total failure to make preliminary inquiries, and infringement
of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations and of the relevant
general principles of law in the analysis of the date from
which the limitation period for bringing an action under
Article 288 EC begins to run.

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

5. Absolute failure to state grounds in relation to the appellant's
alleged delay in bringing an action under Article 288 EC.

Form of order sought by the appellant

In any event:

— Annul the judgment under appeal fully and unconditionally;

— declare that the action at first instance was brought by the

appellant intra dies;

— declare that the action at first instance was wholly admis-

sible.

6. Infringement of Articles 235 and 288 EC relating to the
jurisdiction of the Community court in actions for compen-
sation for damage and unconsidered, arbitrary and illogical
failure properly to apply the relevant case-law.

7. Infringement of the standards for fair trials, with reference in
particular
to the standards laid down by the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Funda-
mental Freedoms.