Appeal brought on 11 May 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 February 2012 in Case F-3/11, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-207/12 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

Annul in its entirety and without exception whatsoever the order under appeal;

Grant all the appellant's claims in the proceedings at first instance under appeal;

Order the defendant to pay to the appellant all the costs incurred by him in the appeal proceedings;

In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision on each of the claims referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of 29 February 2012 in Case F-3/11 rejecting as manifestly inadmissible an action seeking, first, annulment of the alleged refusal on the part of the European Commission to place a document on the file relating to his accident and, second, an order that the Commission pay to the appellant the sum of EUR 1000 by way of compensation for the damage alleged.

The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

1. First ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons for the ruling that the action was manifestly inadmissible and manifest uncertainty, inconsistent reasoning, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, self-evident, illogical, irrelevant and unreasonable reasoning, infringement of the obligation of clare loqui, failure to rule on one of the appellant's claims, and incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of:

Articles 26 and 26a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

the rules of law relating to the concept of an actionable measure (in particular, at paragraphs 30 to 47 of the order under appeal);

the rules of law concerning the processing of and access by the individual to personal data affecting him which is held by a European Union institution;

2. Second ground, alleging that the court at first instance's rulings on costs are unlawful (between paragraphs 47 and 48 of the order under appeal).

____________