Appeal brought on 1 September 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 22 June 2010 in Case F-78/09, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-366/10 P)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

in any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;

declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was admissible in its entirety and without exception;

uphold in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the application lodged at first instance by the appellant;

order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation both to the proceedings at first instance and to the present appeal proceedings;

in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal has been brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 22 June 2010. That order dismissed as manifestly inadmissible an action seeking compensation for the damage sustained by the appellant because of the Commission's refusal to reimburse him in respect of the costs incurred in the proceedings in Case T-18/04 Marcuccio v Commission.

In support of his claims, the appellant alleges the erroneous and unreasonable interpretation of the concept of 'request' for the purposes of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations; total failure to state reasons; distortion and misrepresentation of the facts; and misinterpretation of the case-law on the recovery of costs which a party has been ordered to pay by the Court.

The appellant also alleges breach of the principle of audi alteram partem and of the rights of the defence and asserts that the CST failed to rule on a number of his claims.

____________