CELEX: 62009TN0020
Language: en
Date: 2009-01-16 00:00:00
Title: 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

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 (represented 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)
   Form of order sought by the appellant
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the judgment under appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               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
   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.
   In this regard, the appellant states that in reaching this result the tribunal hearing the case at first instance erred in law in holding, in essence, that doctors involved in incapacity proceedings 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 that the incapacity procedure was made unduly cumbersome.