Action brought on 30 October 2009 - Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-91/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission's decision rejecting the applicant's request for compensation for damage suffered as a result of a letter by which the Commission asked a doctor to carry out a medical examination in order to assess the applicant's actual fitness for work.

Form of order sought

Declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the decision, which was in fact an implied decision, by which the Commission rejected the request of 9 September 2008;

in so far as necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul the act, in whatever form, by which the Commission rejected the complaint of 16 March 2009 against the decision rejecting the request of 9 September 2008;

in so far as necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul note ADMIN.B.2/MB/ks/ D(09) 16349 of 30 June 2009;

in so far as necessary, confirm that a Commission official: (a) sent or arranged to be sent to the Direttore A.S.L. Le 2 - Maglie the note of 9 December 2003 concerning 'Medical examination in Tricase (Le)'; (b) asked him to arrange for the applicant to have a medical examination; (c) informed him that, by reason of an extended period of illness (more than 365 days), a procedure had been initiated (Invalidity Committee) to assess whether or not the applicant was fit for work; (d) expressed to him his opinion, which was wholly unfounded, that the applicant 'had employed numerous delaying tactics in order to stall the convening of the Invalidity Committee, all of which were rejected by the competent department of the European Commission as lacking in justification'; (e) informed him that the applicant 'has been invited to attend a medical examination in Brussels on Monday 8 December 2003'; (f) gave him the name of the person appointed to represent the institution on the Invalidity Committee; (g) informed him that, by 9 December 2003, 'no medical certificate ha[d] been sent by fax to the Commission's Medical Service'; (h) expressed to him his opinion, which was wholly unfounded, that the applicant should have sent a medical certificate by fax to the Commission's Medical Service to justify his failure to attend the medical examination which should have taken place in Brussels on 8 December 2003; (i) attached two documents to the note of 9 December 2003, the first relating to the alleged referral of the applicant's case to the Invalidity Committee and the second summoning the applicant to attend a medical examination;

in so far as necessary, confirm and declare that each of the acts giving rise to the damage in question is unlawful, in particular as regards the cumulative effect of those acts;

order the defendant to pay to the applicant by way of compensation for the damage thereby arising the sum of EUR 300 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider fair and just;

order the defendant to pay to the applicant, with effect from the date following that on which the request of 24 September 2008 was received by the Commission until actual payment, the sum of EUR 300 000 and interest on that sum at the rate of 10% per annum, with annual capitalisation;

order the defendant to pay all costs, fees and other expenses incurred in the proceedings.

____________