# C_2015146EN.01004001.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/40

---

Action brought on 18 February 2015 — KENUP Foundation a.o./EIT

(Case T-76/15)

(2015/C 146/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: KENUP Foundation (Kalkara, Malta), Candena GmbH (Lüneburg, Germany), Center odličnosti za biosenzoriko, instrumentacijo in procesno kontrolo (CO BIK) (Ajdovščina, Slovenia), Evotec AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, C. Wagner and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decisions of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, of 9 December 2014, on the designation of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (02008.EIT.2014.I.EIT.GB) and on the rejection of the KENUP proposal as notified by letter of 10 December 2014 (012234.EIT.D.2014.MK) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, of 9 December 2014, on the designation of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities (02008.EIT.2014.I.EIT.GB) and on the rejection of the KENUP proposal as notified by letter of 10 December 2014 (012234.EIT.D.2014.MK) and

| — | order the EIT to pay the applicants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIT to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on nine pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions rejecting the KENUP proposal were not taken by the competent EU body. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions rejecting the KENUP proposal were not taken by the competent EU body.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the EIT failed to follow the applicable selection procedure when adopting the contested decisions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the EIT failed to follow the applicable selection procedure when adopting the contested decisions.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the EIT failed to state reasons by not notifying the designation decision to the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the EIT failed to state reasons by not notifying the designation decision to the applicants.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external expert violates the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external expert violates the principle of equal treatment.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts violates the principles of transparency and the obligation to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts violates the principles of transparency and the obligation to state reasons.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts violates the Horizon 2020 Participation Regulation’s provisions on ethical review. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts violates the Horizon 2020 Participation Regulation’s provisions on ethical review.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts contains manifest errors in the assessment of the proposal. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the evaluation of the KENUP proposal conducted by the EIT’s external experts contains manifest errors in the assessment of the proposal.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging that experts of the EIT’s and members of the EIT Governing Board involved in the selection procedure leading to the Contested Decision were in a position that brought their interests into conflict with those of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging that experts of the EIT’s and members of the EIT Governing Board involved in the selection procedure leading to the Contested Decision were in a position that brought their interests into conflict with those of the European Union.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging that the EIT 2014 Call for Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) violates the rules of procedure governing the KICs selection procedure. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging that the EIT 2014 Call for Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) violates the rules of procedure governing the KICs selection procedure.

---