CELEX: 62016TN0871
Language: en
Date: 2016-12-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-871/16: Action brought on 8 December 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v INEA

3.4.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 104/48
            
         Action brought on 8 December 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v INEA
   (Case T-871/16)
   (2017/C 104/68)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: Y. de Vries, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the defendant’s decision of 17 July 2015 on the rejection of the applicant’s proposal in response to the call for proposals in the context of the Connecting Europe Facility and on the basis of the Multi-annual Work Programme adopted in 2014;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to take a new decision with respect to the applicant’s proposal, taking account of the judgment of the General Court referred to in the application, within three months from the date of the judgment;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to bear the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s proposal.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant submits reasons why in its view the defendant’s evaluation of the applicant’s proposal against the award criteria relevance, impact and quality was deficient.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           The applicant submits reasons why in its view the defendant drew an inappropriate distinction between its proposal relating to emission abatement technologies and similar proposals by its competitors which have been selected for funding.