Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/44 |

---

Action brought on 3 October 2014 — Holistic Innovation Institute v REA

(Case T-706/14)

2014/C 421/62

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Muñiz García, lawyer)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the contested decision excluding the applicant from the INACHUS and ZONeSEC projects; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | compensate the applicant and order the defendant to pay the amount of EUR 7 81  250, corresponding to the two projects from which it has been excluded, together with interest at the statutory rate from when the payments were to accrue; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | compensate the applicant and order the defendant to pay the amount determined by the expert appointed by the General Court, for the additional harm that exclusion from the projects caused to the applicant. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the decision of the Research Executive Agency of the European Commission of 24 July 2014, reference ARES (2014) 2461172, terminating negotiations and rejecting the participation of the applicant in the European projects INACHUS (607522) and ZONeSEC (607292) of the Call for Proposals FP7-SEC-2013-1 of the Seventh Framework Programme.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | The decision is manifestly unfounded, containing a mere ostensible statement of reasons. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | The independent evaluators reported favourably on projects in which the applicant company participated. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | After those reports, the defendant changed the criteria as a retaliatory measure against the director of the applicant, who had previously brought proceedings against the European Commission in connection with a dispute relating to the company Rose Visión S.L. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 4. | The agents of the defendant put pressure on the other participants in the projects to exclude the applicant before the decision, in an attempt thereby to avoid having to take the contested decision. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 5. | The defendant’s conduct caused the applicant damage and prejudicial consequences. |

---

[Top](#document1)