# C_2016475EN.01001701.xml

| 19.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 475/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 475/17

---

Action brought on 26 October 2016 — OP v Commission

(Case T-478/16)

(2016/C 475/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: OP (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: S. Conrad, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s implicit and explicit rejection decisions of 16 and 30 September 2016 respectively (Ref.: Ares (2016) 5716994), relating to the applicant’s administrative complaint of 17 April 2016 under Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 seeking a review of the legality of the decision of the Executive Agency of the European Research Council of 18 March 2016 (Ref.: Ares (2016) 1371979), received by the applicant on 28 April 2016, stating that the applicant’s grant application of 17 November 2015 (application number 716017 — QUASIMODO) within the Framework Programme ‘Horizon 2020’, ERC Work Programme 2016 (ERC Starting Grant) had been considered unsuitable and had been rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s implicit and explicit rejection decisions of 16 and 30 September 2016 respectively (Ref.: Ares (2016) 5716994), relating to the applicant’s administrative complaint of 17 April 2016 under Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 seeking a review of the legality of the decision of the Executive Agency of the European Research Council of 18 March 2016 (Ref.: Ares (2016) 1371979), received by the applicant on 28 April 2016, stating that the applicant’s grant application of 17 November 2015 (application number 716017 — QUASIMODO) within the Framework Programme ‘Horizon 2020’, ERC Work Programme 2016 (ERC Starting Grant) had been considered unsuitable and had been rejected;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to a review by the defendant of the legality of the actions of the Executive Agency of the European Research Council, since the defendant failed to reply to the applicant’s administrative complaint within the deadline laid down by the third subparagraph of Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003. (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to a review by the defendant of the legality of the actions of the Executive Agency of the European Research Council, since the defendant failed to reply to the applicant’s administrative complaint within the deadline laid down by the third subparagraph of Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 58/2003. (1)

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the rejection of the applicant’s grant application was unlawful.
  The applicant submits that the rejection of her administrative complaint was also unlawful because the decision by the Executive Agency of the European Research Council rejecting her grant application was itself unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the rejection of the applicant’s grant application was unlawful.

The applicant submits that the rejection of her administrative complaint was also unlawful because the decision by the Executive Agency of the European Research Council rejecting her grant application was itself unlawful.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1).

1

---