Appeal brought on 19 September 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2011 in Case F-14/10, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-491/11 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

Annul in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal.

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 both to 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 order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2011 dismissing as manifestly lacking any foundation in law an action seeking an order that the Commission pay compensation to the appellant for the material and non-material damage suffered by the appellant as a result of the purportedly unreasonably lengthy duration of the procedure for recognising partial permanent invalidity.

The appellant relies on five grounds in support of the appeal.

1.    First ground, alleging error of law, including on the grounds of failure to state reasons and breach of the duty to carry out proper investigations, by failing quite simply in all cases to have regard to the fact that a European Union institution incurs liability in tort where it infringes the obligation it is under to give reasons for each of its decisions and by declaring the plea relied on by the appellant in that regard irrelevant.

2.    Second ground, alleging incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of the concept of the duty to state reasons.

3.    Third ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons, including on the grounds of failure to carry out investigations, and procedural errors in that the Tribunal failed to declare that the Commission's defence was clearly out of time and thus inadmissible.

4.    Fourth ground, alleging breach of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and breach of the appellant's right to a fair hearing and the rights of the defence.

5.    Fifth ground, alleging incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

____________