EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-352/21: Action brought on 13 June 2021 — Oi Dromoi tis Elias v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0352

62021TN0352

June 13, 2021
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/26

(Case T-352/21)

(2021/C 357/40)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Politistikos Organismos ‘Oi Dromoi tis Elias’ (Kalamata, Greece) (represented by: S. Vardalas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul the undated rejection decision, received by the applicant on 23 April 2021, by which the defendant rejected the applicant’s request to participate (‘the proposal’), as the partner responsible for carrying out EUROPE DIRECT activities in Greece, in accordance with the defendant’s call for proposals ED-GREECE-2020/SELECTION OF PARTNERS TO CARRY OUT EUROPE DIRECT ACTIVITIES (2021-2025) IN GREECE; and

accept the applicant’s participation proposal, as the partner responsible for carrying out EUROPE DIRECT activities in Greece, in accordance with the defendant’s call for proposals.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 1 of the call for proposals, by stating that the applicant does not adequately describe the physical environment of the Kalamata EDIC zone of activity and that it failed to take digital transformation into consideration.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 2 of the call for proposals, by stating that the Kalamata EDIC has limited connections with organisations such as small and medium-sized enterprises, NGOs, etc.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 3 of the call for proposals.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 4 of the call for proposals.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia