# C_2021182EN.01003402.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/34

---

Appeal brought on 23 February 2021 by Universität Bremen against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) made on 16 December 2020 in Case T-660/19, Universität Bremen v Research Executive Agency

(Case C-110/21 P)

(2021/C 182/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Universität Bremen (represented by: C. Schmid, university teacher)

Other party to the proceedings: Research Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) of 16 December 2020 in Case T-660/19, Universität Bremen v Research Executive Agency; |
| --- | --- |

1.

set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) of 16 December 2020 in Case T-660/19, Universität Bremen v Research Executive Agency;

| 2. | refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the merits, where possible to another chamber; |
| --- | --- |

2.

refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the merits, where possible to another chamber;

| 3. | declare that the representation of Universität Bremen by the university teacher, Christoph Schmid, in Case T-660/19 is effective in accordance with the seventh paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

declare that the representation of Universität Bremen by the university teacher, Christoph Schmid, in Case T-660/19 is effective in accordance with the seventh paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

| 4. | in the alternative, in the event that representation by the university teacher referred to above is deemed ineffective, declare that Universität Bremen is entitled to have a lawyer who fulfils the requirements of the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute pursue before the General Court the proceedings in Case T-660/19 as they currently stand; |
| --- | --- |

4.

in the alternative, in the event that representation by the university teacher referred to above is deemed ineffective, declare that Universität Bremen is entitled to have a lawyer who fulfils the requirements of the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute pursue before the General Court the proceedings in Case T-660/19 as they currently stand;

| 5. | reserve the costs pending the final decision of the General Court, provided that, irrespective of the final decision of the General Court, the defendant is to bear the costs relating to the proceedings to date, namely the direct action and the appeal, or that — in the alternative — each party is to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings to date; order that, in both cases, the applicant is to be reimbursed immediately in respect of lawyers’ fees for the proceedings before the General Court paid by the applicant to the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

5.

reserve the costs pending the final decision of the General Court, provided that, irrespective of the final decision of the General Court, the defendant is to bear the costs relating to the proceedings to date, namely the direct action and the appeal, or that — in the alternative — each party is to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings to date; order that, in both cases, the applicant is to be reimbursed immediately in respect of lawyers’ fees for the proceedings before the General Court paid by the applicant to the defendant.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant claims that the order under appeal wrongly dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, in accordance with Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, its action for annulment of decision Ares (2019) 4590599 of the Research Executive Agency of 16 July 2019 on the ground of ineffective legal representation by the university teacher, Christoph Schmid. The appellant submits that that order of the General Court is legally flawed. First, the appellant claims that the General Court disregarded the fact that university teachers having a right of audience under the law of their home country are privileged as legal representatives under the wording and scheme of the seventh paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and do not have to fulfil the conditions of the autonomous concept of a lawyer under the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute. Secondly — and in the alternative — the appellant claims that the General Court ought, in accordance with the fundamental right to be heard under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) ECHR and in accordance with the principle of proportionality, to have in any event provided an indication of the problems regarding admissibility; in the alternative, such an indication ought to have at least been provided on the website of the General Court, for example in the ‘Aide-mémoire: Application’.

---