Case T-20/09 P: Appeal brought on 16 January 2009 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2009-01-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European official, action by staff, appeal, disability insurance, early retirement, personnel administration

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/49

Appeal brought on 16 January 2009 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the judgment of the
Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 November 2008 in
Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-20/09 P)

(2009/C 55/87)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, and by C. Berardis-Kayser and J.
Currall, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Luigi Marcuccio (Triase, Italy)

Action brought on 21 January 2009 — CNOP and CCG v
Commission

(Case T-23/09)

(2009/C 55/88)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Conseil National de l'Ordre des Pharmaciens (CNOP)
(Paris, France), Conseil Central de la Section G de l'Ordre
National des Pharmaciens (CCG) (Paris, France) (represented by:
Y.-R. Guillou, H. Speyart and T. Verstraeten, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

Form of order sought by the appellant

— annul the contested decision; and

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay

those of the applicants.

— refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal in order that
it may adjudicate on the other pleas put forward by the
appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Civil Service
Tribunal (CST) of 4 November 2008, by which it annulled the
appellant's decision of 30 May 2005, ordering that the applicant
at first instance should take compulsory retirement on grounds
of his incapacity, which had been established by the Invalidity
Committee. In addition, the CST fixed the compensation for
non-material damage suffered at the sum of EUR 3 000.

The annulment was granted in reliance exclusively on the first
plea in law, based on a failure to state adequate reasons.

first

In this regard, the appellant states that in reaching this result the
tribunal hearing the case at
instance erred in law in
holding, in essence, that doctors involved in incapacity proceed-
ings based on Articles 53, 59 and 78 of the Staff Regulations
are required to provide, in support of their findings, a statement
of reasons similar to that required in the case of occupational
disease or for the purposes of Article 73. In so doing, according
to the Commission, the CST confused the two procedures, with
the result
the incapacity procedure was made unduly
cumbersome.

that

The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision
C(2008) 6494 of 29 October 2008 in which the Commission,
pursuant to Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), ordered
to an inspection concerning their
the applicants to submit
possible participation in and/or implementation of agreements
or
of
contrary
Articles 81 EC and/or 82 EC.

provisions

concerted

practices

the

to

That conduct took the form of decisions aimed at preventing
pharmacists and/or legal persons from gaining access to the
market in bio-medical analysis services, to restrict their activities
on that market, or to exclude them from that market, inter alia,
by not registering pharmacists and/or legal persons wishing to
offer bio-medical analysis services in the Section G List, and by
not updating their registration on that list.

In support of their actions, the applicants put forward three
pleas in law alleging:

— breach of the principle that the decisions of the Community
institutions must be addressed to entities having legal
personality, as the Ordre National des Pharmaciens is also
an addressee of the contested decisions although it has no
legal personality;

— breach of the duty to state reasons, as the Commission did
not identify the entity which may constitute an undertaking
or an association of undertakings, within the meaning of
Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003, and as it did not
state the reasons justifying such a categorisation;