10.7.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/14

—

(Case C-241/17 P)

(2017/C 221/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Holistic Innovation Institute, S.L.U. (represented by: J.J. Marín López, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017, Holistic Innovation Institute v REA, T-706/14, EU:T:2017:89;

—annul the decision of the Director of the Research Executive Agency of 24 July 2014 [ARES(2014) 2461172], terminating the negotiation with Holistic Innovation Institute, S.L.U. and rejecting its participation in the European projects Inachus and ZONeSEC;

—grant Holistic Innovation Institute, S.L.U. compensation under the terms set out in paragraph 177 of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

3. Error of law in that General Court, in the judgment under appeal, held that the decision at issue was well founded (paragraph 67 of the judgment under appeal) even though the decision at issue refers, as an integral part of its statement of reasons, first, to the Commission Decision [ARES (2014) 710158] of 13 March 2014 rejecting the appellant’s participation in the eDIGIREGION project (paragraphs 57 and 60 to 62 of the judgment under appeal), and, secondly, to the final audit reports 11-INFS-025 and 11-BA119-016 (paragraphs 63 and 64 of the judgment under appeal), whereas both the Commission Decision of 13 March 2014 [ARES (2014) 710158] and the final audit reports 11-INFS-025 and 11-BA119-016 were the subject of actions for annulment.

5. Error of law in that the General Court distorted, in the judgment under appeal, the assessment of the evidence adduced by referring, in paragraphs 8, 77 and 78, to a non-existent document which was not in the file.

8. Error of law in that the General Court considered, in the judgment under appeal, that the schedule set out in the negotiating mandates envisaged the end of the negotiation ‘on an indicative basis’ (paragraph 130 of the judgment under appeal).

9. Error of law in that the General Court incorrectly held, in the judgment under appeal, that it was not necessary to repair the material and immaterial damage suffered as a result of the adoption of the decision at issue (paragraphs 147, 148 and 150 of the judgment under appeal).

—