# C_2017006EN.01005201.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/52

---

Action brought on 1 November 2016 – Pilla v Commission and EACEA

(Case T-784/16)

(2017/C 006/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rinaldo Pilla (Venafro, Italy) (represented by: A. Silvestri, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission, Agenzia esecutiva per l'istruzione, gli audiovisivi e la cultura

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | suspend the selection procedure in progress and annul in its entirety the Commission decision of 2 September 2016 (Directorate General for Education and Culture, Ref. Ares 2016 4930111) excluding Rinaldo Pilla from participation in a funding project, on the grounds of serious infringement of the law, and, failing that, annul the selection in its entirety, on the ground that it is unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

suspend the selection procedure in progress and annul in its entirety the Commission decision of 2 September 2016 (Directorate General for Education and Culture, Ref. Ares 2016 4930111) excluding Rinaldo Pilla from participation in a funding project, on the grounds of serious infringement of the law, and, failing that, annul the selection in its entirety, on the ground that it is unlawful;

| — | if, which is denied, the Court finds that Rinaldo Pilla is not a suitable candidate, order the defendants to compensate the applicant for loss of opportunity as a result of his unjustifiable and unsubstantiated exclusion from the European funding project in question, assessed, in the first instance, at EUR 1 050 000,00, and, in the alternative, at EUR 400 000,00. |
| --- | --- |

—

if, which is denied, the Court finds that Rinaldo Pilla is not a suitable candidate, order the defendants to compensate the applicant for loss of opportunity as a result of his unjustifiable and unsubstantiated exclusion from the European funding project in question, assessed, in the first instance, at EUR 1 050 000,00, and, in the alternative, at EUR 400 000,00.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision excluding the applicant from selection for participation in European funding (Call for proposals EAC/S05/2016, Support for a preparatory action to create an EU Festival Award and an EU Festival Label in the field of Culture: EFFE (Europe for Festivals — Festivals for Europe)).

The applicant relies on two pleas in law in support of his action.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging serious infringement relating to Title I of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2013, Article 2(28) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320), the Council’s forecasts of 17 December 2013, and Article 1(821) of the 2016 Stability Law.






  — | In support of the first plea in law, the applicant claims that a self-employed individual, even if not registered with a professional association, is equivalent to an undertaking, irrespective of legal form, for the purposes of access to the structural funds. Self-employed individuals may access the funds for scientific research and cultural and industrial innovation. The applicant claims that the contested decision did not take into account the fact that the 2016 Stability Law, which implements a 2013 European recommendation, definitively stated that self-employed individuals are equivalent to undertakings. The applicant must be regarded as a suitable applicant since he is a VAT-registered self-employed individual. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging serious infringement relating to Title I of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2013, Article 2(28) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320), the Council’s forecasts of 17 December 2013, and Article 1(821) of the 2016 Stability Law.

—

In support of the first plea in law, the applicant claims that a self-employed individual, even if not registered with a professional association, is equivalent to an undertaking, irrespective of legal form, for the purposes of access to the structural funds. Self-employed individuals may access the funds for scientific research and cultural and industrial innovation. The applicant claims that the contested decision did not take into account the fact that the 2016 Stability Law, which implements a 2013 European recommendation, definitively stated that self-employed individuals are equivalent to undertakings. The applicant must be regarded as a suitable applicant since he is a VAT-registered self-employed individual.

| 2. | Second plea in law concerning the claim for damages.






  — | The applicant claims in this regard that his exclusion from the selection procedure caused him serious harm since there can be no doubt that the failure to include him in the selection procedure for the ‘VENAFRO EUROPEAN FESTIVAL OF LITERATURE’ project clearly constitutes loss of opportunity, which must be assessed fairly, taking into account the nature and scale of that project, and which, prima facie, can only be regarded as equivalent to the value of the funding for that project. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law concerning the claim for damages.

—

The applicant claims in this regard that his exclusion from the selection procedure caused him serious harm since there can be no doubt that the failure to include him in the selection procedure for the ‘VENAFRO EUROPEAN FESTIVAL OF LITERATURE’ project clearly constitutes loss of opportunity, which must be assessed fairly, taking into account the nature and scale of that project, and which, prima facie, can only be regarded as equivalent to the value of the funding for that project.

---