Appeal brought on 17 January 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 November 2012 in Case F-41/06 RENV Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-20/13 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 requests the Court: (1a) to declare that there is no legal basis for the judgment delivered on 6 November 2012 by the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Case F-41/06 RENV Marcuccio v Commission or (1b), in the alternative, to set aside the judgment in its entirety; and (2a), given that the state of the proceedings so permits: (2aa) grant all claims made by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance, including the claim that the EC (sic) be ordered to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the appeal proceedings; or (2b), in the alternative, refer the case back to the court at first instance for a fresh decision on each of the claims made by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment referred to above, which dismissed the action which had been referred back to the Civil Service Tribunal by judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2011 in Case T-20/09 Commission v Marcuccio, setting aside in part the judgment in Case F-41/06 ruling on the appellant's action seeking annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 May 2005 by which he was retired on grounds of invalidity and of a series of measures connected to that decision, and on a claim that the Commission pay damages.

The appellant relies on 7 grounds of appeal.

1.    Errores in procedendo, affecting the appellant's interests, inherent in the serious, patent, flagrant, spectacular, manifest, irremediable and vital errores in iudicando.

2.    Total failure to state reasons in the judgment under appeal.

3.    The contested decision is unlawful on the grounds, inter alia, of lack of competence on the part of the author of the decision, defects in the decision-making procedure, entailing breach of essential procedural requirements and misuse of powers in the form of abuse of process.

4.    Distortion and misapplication of the facts.

5.    Incorrect, false and unreasonable [application and] breach of the rules on evidence and a number of legal principles and rules of law.

6.    Failure to rule on a number of fundamental aspects of the case.

7.    Unlawfulness of a ruling that a complaint made by the appellant concerning the contested decision was inadmissible.

____________