# C_2016243EN.01003301.xml

| 4.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/33

---

Action brought on 28 April 2016 — KK v EASME

(Case T-376/15)

(2016/C 243/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: KK (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 15 June 2015, by which EASME rejected the applicant’s proposal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 15 June 2015, by which EASME rejected the applicant’s proposal;

| — | order EASME to pay the sum of EUR 50 000 in compensation for the loss of opportunity, and EUR 90 800 in compensation for material damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASME to pay the sum of EUR 50 000 in compensation for the loss of opportunity, and EUR 90 800 in compensation for material damage suffered by the applicant;

| — | order EASME to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EASME to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law in support of its claim for annulment.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the technical inaccessibility of the Internet portal where the applicant’s proposal in response to the call for proposals and related activities under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-20) should have been submitted. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the technical inaccessibility of the Internet portal where the applicant’s proposal in response to the call for proposals and related activities under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-20) should have been submitted.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant, contrary to what is contended by EASME, did not fraudulently sign the commitment when submitting its proposal file. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant, contrary to what is contended by EASME, did not fraudulently sign the commitment when submitting its proposal file.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the rejection of the proposal submitted by the applicant is contrary to the competition rules. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the rejection of the proposal submitted by the applicant is contrary to the competition rules.

The applicant also relies on two pleas in law in support of its claim for compensation.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the applicant suffered material damage relating to the loss of opportunity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the applicant suffered material damage relating to the loss of opportunity.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant suffered material damage resulting from the time dedicated to responding to the call for proposals. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant suffered material damage resulting from the time dedicated to responding to the call for proposals.

---