Appeal brought on 9 June 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 25 March 2010 in Case F-102/08, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-256/10 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

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 perfectly admissible.

Allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance.

Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and 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 is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 25 March 2010. That order dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded an action seeking a declaration that there was no legal basis for or, in the alternative, the annulment of the Commission's decision refusing to send to the appellant a copy of the photographs taken when his personal effects were removed from his lodgings in Luanda (Angola) and to destroy every document relating to that removal, together with an order that the Commission pay compensation to the appellant for the damage resulting from the fact that it proceeded with the removal against the appellant's will.

In support of his claims, the appellant alleges a total failure to state reasons and infringement of rules governing evidence, the principle of the equality of the parties before the Community judicature, Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the CST, the Commission's duty to have regard for the welfare of the appellant and the duty of sound administration.

The appellant also submits that the CST failed to give a ruling on three of his claims.

____________