ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

8 July 2013

Case T‑238/11 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Invalidity allowance — Payment of arrears — Default interest — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal:      against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 February 2011 in Case F‑81/09 Marcuccio v Commission [2011] ECR-SC, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:      The appeal is dismissed. Mr Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and those of the European Commission in the present proceedings.

Summary

1.      Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of pleas and arguments presented before the Civil Service Tribunal — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 138(1), first subpara., (c));

2.      Appeals — Grounds — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1));

3.      Appeals –Grounds — Inadequate or contradictory reasons — Admissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1));

4.      Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the Civil Service Tribunal on implied reasons — Lawfulness — Conditions

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1))

5.      Appeals — Grounds — Plea directed at the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal on costs — Inadmissibility in the event of dismissal of all the other pleas

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(2))

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 26, 28-29, 31-32, 36, 42, 44)

See:

C‑248/99 P France v Monsanto and Commission [2002] ECR I‑1, para. 68; C‑488/01 P Martinez v Parliament [2003] I‑13355, paras 39 to 41; C‑196/03 P Lucaccioni v Commission [2004] ECR I‑2683, paras 40 and 41 and the case-law cited therein; C‑189/02 P, C‑202/02 P, C‑205/02 P to C‑208/02 P and C‑213/02 P Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission [2005] ECR I‑5425, paragraph 426.

T‑338/07 P Bianchi v ETF [2010] ECR-SC, paragraph 59; 4 April 2011, T‑239/09 P Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 62

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 27, 45, 63)

See:

C‑186/02 P and C‑118/02 P Ramondín and Others v Commission [2004] ECR I‑10653, para. 60; C‑25/05 P, Storck v OHIM [2006] I‑5719, para. 61

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 50)

See:

T‑256/10 P Marcuccio v Commission [2011] ECR-SC, para. 23 and the case-law cited therein

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 51)

See:

T‑274/11 P, Mioni v Commission [2011]ECR-SC, para. 34 and the case-law cited therein

5.      It is apparent from Article 11(2) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice that no appeal lies regarding only the amount of the costs or the party ordered to pay them. Accordingly, where all the other pleas put forward in an appeal have been rejected, any claim alleging the unlawfulness of the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal on costs must be rejected as inadmissible.

(see para. 76)

See:

T‑375/08 P Nijs v Court of Auditors [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1-65 and II‑B‑1-413, para. 71 and the case-law cited therein