JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

20 October 2008

Case T-278/07 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Social security – Industrial accident – Decision to close the procedure for the application of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations – Lack of an act causing adverse effect – Appeal unfounded)

Appeal: against the order of the European Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 May 2007 in Case F‑2/06 Marcuccio v Commission ECR-SC I-A-0000, for the annulment of that order.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and to pay the Commission’s costs before this Court.

Summary

1.      Appeal – Pleas in law – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Rejection – Legal characterisation of the facts

(Art. 225a EC)

2.      Procedure – Decision taken by reasoned order – Use of measures of organisation of procedure – Measures not precluding the adoption of such an order

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 64 and 111; Council Decision 2004/752, Art. 3(4))

1.      An appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts. The Civil Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts. However, when the Civil Service Tribunal has established or assessed the facts, the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction under Article 225A EC to review the legal characterisation of those facts and the inferences in law which the Civil Service Tribunal has drawn from them.

(see para. 20)

See: C‑270/99 P Z v Parliament [2001] ECR I‑9197, para. 37 and the case-law cited therein

2.      The use of the measures of organisation of procedure envisaged in Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, such as an attempt to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute, is not, in itself, capable of precluding a reasoned order from being adopted under Article 111 of the same rules, provided that the conditions laid down in that provision are satisfied.

(see paras 41-42)

See: C‑547/03 P AIT v Commission [2006] ECR I‑845, para. 30