Case C-528/08 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-144/08 Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2008-11-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), appeal, health expenditure, redemption, social security

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/21

Action brought on 27 November 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Ireland

Form of order sought

(Case C-521/08)

(2009/C 32/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Støvlbæk and A.A. Gilly, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to fully comply with
Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of
professional qualifications (1), or in any event by failing to
communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 20 October 2007.

(1) OJ L 255, p. 22.

Appeal brought on 28 November 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio
against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-144/08
Marcuccio v Commission

(Case C-528/08 P)

(2009/C 32/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, avvo-
cato)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

— 1. In any event:

(1.a) Annul the order under appeal in its entirety;

(1.b) Declare the original action to be fully admissible;

and in addition:

issue, or by way of compensation for

— 2/A as a primary remedy: (2/A.1) annul the contested deci-
sion; (2/A.2) annul, in so far as necessary, the statement of
reimbursement of 18 July 2005; (2/A.3) annul, to the extent
necessary, the decision to reject the complaint in full; (2/A.4)
order the defendant to pay to the appellant, by way of reim-
bursement of the additional sum needed to make up 100 %,
with a view to obtaining repayment in full, of the medical
expenses at
the
damage arising as a result of
the defendant's unlawful
conduct, to pay to the appellant the sum of EUR 89,56 or
such higher or lower amount as the Court may deem to be
just and equitable; (2A/.5) order the defendant to pay to the
appellant default interest on the amount referred to at 2/A.4
for the period from the date on which it became due until
the date of actual payment, to be determined in accordance
with the applicable rules; (2/A.6) order the defendant to pay
to the appellant all the costs and expenses of the proceed-
ings;

or

— 2/B. in the alternative, to refer the case back to the Court of

First Instance for a fresh decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. Distortion and misrepresentation of the facts and the state-
ments of the appellant in his pleadings, arising also from the
material
inaccuracy of the findings of the Court of First
Instance (in particular, paragraphs 29, 31, 34 and 38 of the
order under appeal).

2. Misinterpretation and misapplication of

in addition, confusion,

the concept of a
challengeable act, and,
irrationality,
illogicality, infringement of Article 231 of the EC Treaty and
failure to have regard to the case-law relating to the effects of
the annulment by the Community judicature of a decision
issued by a Community institution, infringement of the prin-
ciple of res judicata and infringement of the principle of the
separation of powers (in particular, paragraphs 32 and 34 of
the order under appeal).

3. Misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 90 and 91
of the Statute and of the concept of decisions issued by a
Community institution.

4. Infringement of

the legally-binding principle of natural
justice and errors of procedure so serious as to result in the
rights of
in particular the
rights of the defence and the right to a just and equitable
hearing.

the appellant being infringed,