Appeal brought on 11 February 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 23 November 2010 in Case F-65/09, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-85/11 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 General Court should:

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

declare that the document produced by the Commission on the day of the hearing has always been and remains totally inadmissible in hanc litem;

allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought 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 judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 November 2010. That judgment dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of 5 August 2008, adopted pursuant to the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 10 June 2008 in Case T-18/04 Marcuccio v Commission (not published in the ECR), annulment of the decision to reject the complaint against that decision and an order that the Commission pay the appellant a certain sum by way of compensation for the damage purportedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

First ground, alleging certain procedural errors and errors in judicando on the grounds, inter alia, of breach of the rights of the defence.

Second ground, alleging that the author of the decision annulment of which was sought at first instance lacked competence.

Third ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons in connection with the annulment sought at first instance.

Fourth ground, alleging that a large number of the statements in the judgment under appeal are unlawful on account, inter alia, of the following defects: (a) breach and incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of legal rules; (b) breach of the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti; (c) misuse of power, including abuse of process; (d) absolute failure to state reasons.

____________