# C_2016364EN.01001001.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/10

---

Appeal brought on 22 July 2016 by Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 12 May 2016 in Case T-468/14 Holistic Innovation Institute v Commission

(Case C-411/16 P)

(2016/C 364/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (represented by: J.J. Marín López, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 in Case T-468/14 Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU v Commission, in so far as it held that the action for annulment of Commission Decision ARES (2014) 710158 of 13 March 2014, excluding the applicant’s participation in the eDIGIREGION project, was brought before the General Court out of time; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 in Case T-468/14 Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU v Commission, in so far as it held that the action for annulment of Commission Decision ARES (2014) 710158 of 13 March 2014, excluding the applicant’s participation in the eDIGIREGION project, was brought before the General Court out of time;

| — | Refer the case back to the General Court for judgment on the substance of the action brought by Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU for annulment of Commission Decision ARES (2014) 710158 of 13 March 2014 excluding the applicant’s participation in the eDIGIREGION project; |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the General Court for judgment on the substance of the action brought by Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU for annulment of Commission Decision ARES (2014) 710158 of 13 March 2014 excluding the applicant’s participation in the eDIGIREGION project;

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 in Case T-468/14 Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU v Commission, in so far as it dismissed the claim for compensation, and instead hold that the Commission must compensate the appellant in the terms set out in the application, or, should the Court of Justice uphold the two heads of claim set out previously, refer the case back to the General Court for it to adjudicate anew on the applicant’s claim for compensation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 May 2016 in Case T-468/14 Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU v Commission, in so far as it dismissed the claim for compensation, and instead hold that the Commission must compensate the appellant in the terms set out in the application, or, should the Court of Justice uphold the two heads of claim set out previously, refer the case back to the General Court for it to adjudicate anew on the applicant’s claim for compensation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| 1. | Error of law: the judgment under appeal failed to mention that the original of the application for annulment of the contested decision, lodged at the General Court Registry on 6 June 2014 (paragraph 29 of the judgment under appeal), was sent on 2 June 2014 from Pozuelo de Alarcón (Madrid), where the appellant has its registered office, by recorded delivery with acknowledgement of receipt. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Error of law: the judgment under appeal failed to mention that the original of the application for annulment of the contested decision, lodged at the General Court Registry on 6 June 2014 (paragraph 29 of the judgment under appeal), was sent on 2 June 2014 from Pozuelo de Alarcón (Madrid), where the appellant has its registered office, by recorded delivery with acknowledgement of receipt.

| 2. | Error of law: the judgment under appeal did not include an adequate statement of reasons since, first, it stated that the original of the application did not bear the handwritten signature of the applicant’s lawyer, but only a copy of the lawyer’s signature (paragraph 30) and, secondly, it denies any legal effect to the original of the application signed by the lawyer by way of a digital certificate (paragraph 35). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Error of law: the judgment under appeal did not include an adequate statement of reasons since, first, it stated that the original of the application did not bear the handwritten signature of the applicant’s lawyer, but only a copy of the lawyer’s signature (paragraph 30) and, secondly, it denies any legal effect to the original of the application signed by the lawyer by way of a digital certificate (paragraph 35).

| 3. | Error of law: in finding that the applicant’s application for annulment was lodged out of time (paragraphs 29, 34 and 45), the judgment under appeal infringes the fundamental right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, understood in the light of Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, and of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting Article 6(1). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Error of law: in finding that the applicant’s application for annulment was lodged out of time (paragraphs 29, 34 and 45), the judgment under appeal infringes the fundamental right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, understood in the light of Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, and of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting Article 6(1).

| 4. | Error of law: the judgment under appeal dismissed, in paragraphs 55, 59, 63 and 64 (relating to economic loss) and paragraphs 77 and 84 (relating to non-material damage), the claim for compensation lodged by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Error of law: the judgment under appeal dismissed, in paragraphs 55, 59, 63 and 64 (relating to economic loss) and paragraphs 77 and 84 (relating to non-material damage), the claim for compensation lodged by the applicant.

---