Appeal brought on 3 March 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 December 2010 in Case F-1/10, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-126/11 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

In any event, set aside the judgment under appeal, in so far as the court at first instance: (a) rejected as inadmissible some of the claims made by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance; (b) rejected certain other claims made at first instance on the ground that they were closely connected with those rejected as inadmissible: (c) ordered the appellant to bear his own costs in the proceedings at first instance.

Declare that all the claims made at first instance were admissible in their entirety and without any exception.

Allow in their entirety and without exception those claims made at first instance which were rejected as inadmissible or dismissed by the court at first instance, so that all the claims made at first instance, which, for all legal intents and purposes, are to be deemed to be reproduced in the present application, are allowed by the Court on the basis of the part of judgment under appeal that is favourable to the appellant in conjunction with the judgment to be delivered by this appeal court.

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 under appeal back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision on the claims which were unlawfully rejected as inadmissible by the court at first instance and the claims unlawfully dismissed by that court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 14 December 2010. That judgment dismissed in part an action for annulment of the decision refusing reimbursement at the normal rate of various medical expenses and the decision refusing supplementary reimbursement, namely at the rate of 100%, of those medical expenses, and an order that the Commission pay to the appellant a certain sum in respect of the medical expenses owing to him.

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

First ground, alleging that the findings in the judgment under appeal concerning the object of the action and those relating to the Commission's plea of inadmissibility were unlawful.

Second ground, alleging incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and illogical failure to have regard to the relevant case-law.

Third ground, alleging total failure to state reasons, by reason inter alia of failure to make preliminary inquiries, distortion of facts and of the claims made at first instance.

____________