(First Chamber)

20 May 2009

Case F‑73/08

Luigi Marcuccio


Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Social security – Sickness insurance – Rejection of applications for payment of medical expenses)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks in particular, first, annulment of the Commission’s implied decisions rejecting his applications of 27 and 30 June 2007 seeking reimbursement at the normal rate of various medical expenses, and his applications of 29 June and 2 July 2007 seeking ‘supplementary’, i.e.100%, reimbursement of the same medical expenses; second, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 April 2008 expressly rejecting his complaints against those decisions; third, an order for the Commission to pay him, by way of 100% reimbursement of those expenses, the sum of EUR 4 747.29 or any other sum which the Tribunal may consider appropriate, plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum with annual capitalisation from 7 November 2007.

Held: The action is dismissed as partly manifestly unfounded in law and partly manifestly inadmissible. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.


1.      Officials – Decision adversely affecting an official – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Scope – Application for payment of medical expenses

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)

2.      Officials – Actions – Acts adversely affecting an official – Confirmatory measure

(Staff Regulations, Arts 72(1), 90 and 91)

1.      A decision rejecting an application for reimbursement of medical expenses contains an adequate statement of the reasons on which it is based where it informs the official of the way in which his application has been handled and the factual and legal grounds which justify coverage under the Rules on Sickness Insurance of the European Communities, even if not all the accounts sheets issued by the settlements office were sent to that official. The fact that the official was unaware of the existence of those accounts sheets before he received notification of the rejection decision has no bearing on the lawfulness of the decision.

Furthermore, and in any event, even if the reasons given for such a rejection decision are inadequate, it must be regarded as containing at the very least the initial elements of a statement of reasons enabling the institution to provide further information during the proceedings and to fulfil its obligation to state reasons.

(see paras 51, 52, 54)


T‑37/89 Hanning v Parliament [1990] ECR II‑463, paras 41 and 44

2.      A decision rejecting an application for the reimbursement of medical expenses at 100% which does not contain any new factor compared with an identical application which has previously been rejected and which has already been the subject of proceedings brought before the Community judicature does not change the legal position of the applicant and therefore does not constitute an act adversely affecting him within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.

Even if such a decision might be regarded as a measure confirming, and thus indissociable from, the first decision and is, to that extent, capable of adversely affecting the official, the Community court hearing an action against that decision should automatically find that the action is between the same parties, has the same purpose and is based on the same submissions. In such circumstances, the action would be manifestly inadmissible under the principle of lis pendens.

(see paras 60-61)


58/72 and 75/72 Perinciolo v Council [1973] ECR 511, paras 3 to 5; 172/83 and 226/83 Hoogovens Groep v Commission [1985] ECR 2831, para. 9

judgment of 14 June 2007 in T‑68/07 Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 16; judgment of 9 July 2008 in T‑296/05 and T‑408/05 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, paras 47 to 49; T‑143/08 Marcuccio v Commission [2008] ECR‑SC I‑A‑2‑0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, paras 39 to 41; T‑144/08 Marcuccio v Commission [2008] ECR‑SC I‑A‑2‑0000 and II‑A‑2‑0000, paras 32 to 34

F‑80/06 Duyster v Commission [2008] ECR‑SC I‑A‑1‑0000 and II‑A‑1‑0000, para. 52