CELEX: C2006/086/87
Language: en
Date: 2006-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case F-2/06: Action brought on  5 January 2006  — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities

8.4.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 86/48
            
         Action brought on 5 January 2006 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-2/06)
   (2006/C 86/87)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties
   
      Applicant(s): Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: I. Cazzato, avvocato)
   
      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision closing the procedure for recognition of the applicant's legal guarantees in particular under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations in respect of an accident sustained by the applicant on 10 September 2003.
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of the application, the applicant submits first of all that the contested decision is flawed by reason of manifest inconsistency and a complete failure to state reasons. In fact, even though on several occasions he had stated that he was committed to pursuing the procedure intended to confer upon him the benefits under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and that he was available to be examined by the doctor appointed by the defendant, the defendant nevertheless found that the applicant was not committed to pursuing the procedure in question and therefore closed that procedure.
   The applicant further alleges that the defendant infringed the law, given that there is no rule requiring an official who was the victim of an accident to contact directly the doctor appointed by the institution to fix an appointment.
   Lastly, the applicant alleges that the defendant has infringed the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, in that it failed to have due regard to the interests of the applicant and acted in a manner inconsistent with official duty.