# C_2023296EN.01003701.xml

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/37

---

Action brought on 13 June 2023 — Radical-Consulting and Others v EuroHPC Joint Undertaking

(Case T-328/23)

(2023/C 296/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Radical-Consulting UG (Randowtal, Germany), Surf BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften (München, Germany) (represented by: M. Martens, K. Munungu and B. Mourisse, lawyers)

Defendant: European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare that the application for annulment of the contested decisions is admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the application for annulment of the contested decisions is admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul the decision of EuroHPC of 11 August 2022 rejecting the proposal submitted by the consortium of which the Applicants are a member; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of EuroHPC of 11 August 2022 rejecting the proposal submitted by the consortium of which the Applicants are a member;

| — | annul the decision of EuroHPC of 4 April 2023 rejecting the evaluation review; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of EuroHPC of 4 April 2023 rejecting the evaluation review; and,

| — | order EuroHPC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EuroHPC to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the decision of EuroHPC contains multiple factual errors and thus EuroHPC made a substantial error in appreciation, in violation of the principles of good administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision of EuroHPC contains multiple factual errors and thus EuroHPC made a substantial error in appreciation, in violation of the principles of good administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons as enshrined in Article 296(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons as enshrined in Article 296(2) TFEU.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the transparency principle enshrined in Article 29(3) of Regulation 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination (‘Horzion Europe regulation’). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the transparency principle enshrined in Article 29(3) of Regulation 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination (‘Horzion Europe regulation’).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the EuroHPC made a manifest error in appreciation by manifestly misapplying Article 30(2) of the Horizon Europe Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the EuroHPC made a manifest error in appreciation by manifestly misapplying Article 30(2) of the Horizon Europe Regulation.

---