# C_2014045EN.01004201.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/42 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Action brought on 18 December 2013 — Italian international film v EACEA

(Case T-676/13)

2014/C 45/73

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian international film Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini and B. Bettelli, lawyers)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | grant the form of order sought, and consequently annul EACEA’s decision of 8 October 2013 concerning the rejection of the project relating to the film ‘Only God Forgives’ under the call for proposals EACEA/21/12; |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | direct EACEA to take all measures resulting therefrom; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | order EACEA to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------ |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the decision of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency concerning the rejection of the project relating to the film ‘Only God Forgives’ under EACEA’s call for proposals EACEA/21/12 (MEDIA 2007 — Support for the transnational distribution of European films — the ‘Selective’ scheme 2013) (OJ 2012 C 300, p. [5]).

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

| 1. | The first plea, alleging breach of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 133(3) of the Financial Regulation by virtue of the defective statement of reasons.
—
The applicant claims in particular in this regard that it does not understand why, in the present case, the defendant formed the view that the project which it had submitted was ineligible. The contested decision provides reasons for rejection which differ from those set out in the letter sent previously on 7 August 2013, stating that there was a failure to respect an eligibility criterion in the guidelines which differed from the criterion mentioned in the pre-printed part of that letter (distribution of the film to cinemas not undertaken by the applicant itself). However, in the contested decision, the project is rejected by reference to the fifth subparagraph of Article 5.1 of the guidelines, according to which a subcontractor may be used, albeit it to a limited extent. | — | The applicant claims in particular in this regard that it does not understand why, in the present case, the defendant formed the view that the project which it had submitted was ineligible. The contested decision provides reasons for rejection which differ from those set out in the letter sent previously on 7 August 2013, stating that there was a failure to respect an eligibility criterion in the guidelines which differed from the criterion mentioned in the pre-printed part of that letter (distribution of the film to cinemas not undertaken by the applicant itself). However, in the contested decision, the project is rejected by reference to the fifth subparagraph of Article 5.1 of the guidelines, according to which a subcontractor may be used, albeit it to a limited extent. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant claims in particular in this regard that it does not understand why, in the present case, the defendant formed the view that the project which it had submitted was ineligible. The contested decision provides reasons for rejection which differ from those set out in the letter sent previously on 7 August 2013, stating that there was a failure to respect an eligibility criterion in the guidelines which differed from the criterion mentioned in the pre-printed part of that letter (distribution of the film to cinemas not undertaken by the applicant itself). However, in the contested decision, the project is rejected by reference to the fifth subparagraph of Article 5.1 of the guidelines, according to which a subcontractor may be used, albeit it to a limited extent. | | |

| 2. | The second plea, alleging breach of Article 167 TFEU and the implementing rules, including the Financial Regulation, and of points 3 and 4 of the call for proposals EACEA/21/12.
—
The applicant claims in this regard that there is a manifest error in the arguments contained in the contested decision. On this point, the applicant states that it is clear from the content of the contested decision that EACEA erroneously and arbitrarily characterised the contractual relationship between the applicant and Rai Cinema as being subcontractual in nature. It also emerges from that letter that EACEA is confusing a subcontract and a contract delegating the act of ‘physical distribution’ to a third party. | — | The applicant claims in this regard that there is a manifest error in the arguments contained in the contested decision. On this point, the applicant states that it is clear from the content of the contested decision that EACEA erroneously and arbitrarily characterised the contractual relationship between the applicant and Rai Cinema as being subcontractual in nature. It also emerges from that letter that EACEA is confusing a subcontract and a contract delegating the act of ‘physical distribution’ to a third party. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant claims in this regard that there is a manifest error in the arguments contained in the contested decision. On this point, the applicant states that it is clear from the content of the contested decision that EACEA erroneously and arbitrarily characterised the contractual relationship between the applicant and Rai Cinema as being subcontractual in nature. It also emerges from that letter that EACEA is confusing a subcontract and a contract delegating the act of ‘physical distribution’ to a third party. | | |

---