Appeal brought on 15 January 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 November 2008 in Case F-133/06, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-9/09 P)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

In every case

(A.1) set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;

(A.2) declare the action at first instance to be admissible in full.

As a primary remedy:

(B.1) uphold in their entirety and without exception the appellant's pleas in law set out in the application at first instance;

(B.2) order the respondent to pay the appellant's costs relating to this appeal and to the proceedings at first instance;

or, 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

This appeal is directed against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-133/06 Marcuccio v Commission.

In support of the forms of order sought by him, the appellant raises the following pleas in law:

(a) complete failure to carry out preliminary investigations and failure to rule on a fundamental aspect of the dispute, in so far as the order under appeal fails to adjudicate on the application for a declaration that there is no legal basis for the decision contested before the Civil Service Tribunal.

(b) complete failure to state adequate reasons in the order under appeal as regards the inadmissibility of the requests that 'the Commission be ordered to return his personal property to the applicant', 'that the contested decision be annulled' and of 'the application for damages', as regards the order that the appellant should pay the costs, and distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, complete failure to carry out any preliminary investigations, confusion and irrationality, and also the erroneous and incorrect interpretation and application of the Community legislation and case-law.

(c) a procedural error, in that no account was taken of the requirement not to have regard to the arguments contained in the defence in so far as made out of time by the respondent, in a manner which was prejudicial to the interests of the appellant.

(d) infringement of the rules relating to a fair hearing.

____________