Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/24 |

---

Action brought on 6 February 2019 — BMC v Commission and Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking

(Case T-71/19)

(2019/C 122/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: BMC Srl (Medicina, Italy) (represented by: S. Dindo and L. Picotti, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision of the Clean Sky 2 Unit of 6 December 2018 confirming the decision of 10 October 2018 by which Clean Sky 2 found that proposal No 831874, concerning the call for proposals H2020-CS2-CFP08-2018-01 — relating to a suction system for engines and systems for protection against the icing of rotor blades — was not eligible for financing.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted its proposal for participation in call for proposals H2020-CS2-CFP08-2018-01 (Clean Sky 2 Call for proposals 08), managed by Clean Sky 2 (Programme Clean Sky 2), which has as its objective the development of a suction system for engines and systems for protection against the icing of rotor blades (integrating a removable anti-ice system).

The applicant claims to be the only business in the world, currently, to have found a solution to a flight safety problem for helicopters in icy conditions.

The applicant points out in this regard that, even though the call for proposals concerned specifically a request to put forward proposals for the development of the system for protection against icing, Clean Sky 2 (and therefore the unit entrusted with the management of the call) found that the applicant’s proposal did not meet the threshold set out by the call.

That decision, it is submitted, is vitiated by infringement of the procedural rules on the following grounds:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 entitled ‘Selection and award criteria’ (including where an intermediate score has been given in comparison with those laid down by the provision) and the duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | The existence in the present case of a misuse of powers in that an (intermediate) score was applied to each of the three criteria; the scale of scores for the evaluation of the proposals submitted made no provision for such a score. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | The existence in the present case of a misuse of powers by reason of the failure to investigate adequately and distortion of the facts, in particular in that the objectives pursued by the measure at issue are not met. |

---

[Top](#document1)