Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2017 —

Frank v Commission

(Case T‑603/15)

(Action for annulment — Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation — Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2015 — Decision of the ERCEA declaring the proposal submitted by the applicant ineligible — Implied decision of the Commission rejecting the administrative appeal relating to the decision of the ERCEA — Incorrect designation of the defendant — Inadmissibility)

1. Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute—Precise and unequivocal statement of the relief sought—Alteration once proceedings have been started—Condition (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76, first para., (d) and (e), and 84(1)) (see paras 37-41)

2. Judicial proceedings—Absolute bar to proceeding—To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 129) (see para. 48)

3. EU agencies—European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Obligation first to bring an administrative appeal before the Commission—Scope—Use of online form in the system for introducing electronic requests for revision of assessment of proposals by ERCEA—No administrative action—Inadmissibility (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1290/2013, Art. 16; Council Regulation No 58/2003, Art. 22) (see paras 57-59)

4. Actions for annulment—Admissibility criteria—Action against the author of the contested measure—Exceptions—Measures adopted under delegated powers imputable to the delegating institution—Decision of the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) rejecting a proposal submitted in response to a call for proposals—Competence of ERCEA to adopt the said decision—Action directed against the Commission—Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1291/2013, Art. 18; Council Regulation No 58/2003, Art. 22; Council Decision 2013/743, Art. 5(7)(a)) (see paras 67-72)

5. Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Identification of the defendant—Erroneous designation as defendant of a person other than the author of the contested measure—Inadmissibility—Limits—Factors allowing the defendant to be identified without difficulty (Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76, first para., (c)) (see para. 73)

6. Judicial proceedings—Time-limit for instituting proceedings—Claim barred by lapse of time—Excusable error—Concept (see para. 79)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) of 5 June 2015 relating, in the context of the ‘ERC starting grant’ programme, to proposal No 680151 of the applicant — which was not given a positive evaluation during step 1 and was not admitted to step 2 of the evaluation — and the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal pursuant to Article 22(1) of 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).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.