5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/30

—

(Case T-402/09 P)

2009/C 297/45

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 any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;

—declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was perfectly admissible in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever;

—allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance;

—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 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 made by the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) on 20 July 2009 in Case F-86/07 Marcuccio v Commission. That order dismissed, as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded, an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing the appellant’s request for an investigation into the psychological harassment suffered by the appellant during the period in which he was on secondment to the Commission’s delegation in Angola, and for an order that the defendant pay compensation for the damage resulting from the psychological harassment alleged.

In support of his claims, the appellant relies on the following pleas:

—incorrect and inappropriate interpretation of the concept of investigation in Article 17(2) of the Common Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational diseases of officials of the European Communities and the concept of inquiry for the purpose of establishing whether an official of an institution has been subjected to psychological harassment;

—the Tribunal erred in law in declaring inadmissible the application for annulment of the decision rejecting the request for an inquiry, by reason, inter alia, of misinterpretation in rejecting that application as unfounded;

—the Tribunal erred in law in declaring inadmissible the application for annulment of the report drawn up by the Investigation and Disciplinary Office (IDOC), by reason, inter alia, of a total failure to state reasons, failure to rule on a fundamental aspect of the dispute and misapplication of the concept of a preparatory act in the circumstances of the case;

—misinterpretation of the concept of psychological harassment and of the burden of proof of the psychological harassment on the person claiming such harassment;

—total failure to state reasons with regard to the assertions made by way of alleged justification of the rejection of the claim for damages.

—