# C_2021357EN.01002601.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/26

---

Action brought on 13 June 2021 — Oi Dromoi tis Elias v Commission

(Case T-352/21)

(2021/C 357/40)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Politistikos Organismos ‘Oi Dromoi tis Elias’ (Kalamata, Greece) (represented by: S. Vardalas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the undated rejection decision, received by the applicant on 23 April 2021, by which the defendant rejected the applicant’s request to participate (‘the proposal’), as the partner responsible for carrying out EUROPE DIRECT activities in Greece, in accordance with the defendant’s call for proposals ED-GREECE-2020/SELECTION OF PARTNERS TO CARRY OUT EUROPE DIRECT ACTIVITIES (2021-2025) IN GREECE; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the undated rejection decision, received by the applicant on 23 April 2021, by which the defendant rejected the applicant’s request to participate (‘the proposal’), as the partner responsible for carrying out EUROPE DIRECT activities in Greece, in accordance with the defendant’s call for proposals ED-GREECE-2020/SELECTION OF PARTNERS TO CARRY OUT EUROPE DIRECT ACTIVITIES (2021-2025) IN GREECE; and

| — | accept the applicant’s participation proposal, as the partner responsible for carrying out EUROPE DIRECT activities in Greece, in accordance with the defendant’s call for proposals. |
| --- | --- |

—

accept the applicant’s participation proposal, as the partner responsible for carrying out EUROPE DIRECT activities in Greece, in accordance with the defendant’s call for proposals.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 1 of the call for proposals, by stating that the applicant does not adequately describe the physical environment of the Kalamata EDIC zone of activity and that it failed to take digital transformation into consideration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 1 of the call for proposals, by stating that the applicant does not adequately describe the physical environment of the Kalamata EDIC zone of activity and that it failed to take digital transformation into consideration.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 2 of the call for proposals, by stating that the Kalamata EDIC has limited connections with organisations such as small and medium-sized enterprises, NGOs, etc. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 2 of the call for proposals, by stating that the Kalamata EDIC has limited connections with organisations such as small and medium-sized enterprises, NGOs, etc.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 3 of the call for proposals. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 3 of the call for proposals.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 4 of the call for proposals. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 4 of the call for proposals.

---