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-603/15: Action brought on 23 October 2015 –Frank v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015TN0603

62015TN0603

October 23, 2015
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

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/52

(Case T-603/15)

(2016/C 048/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Regine Frank (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: W. Trautner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision notified by letter of 5 June 2015 by which the applicant’s application No 680151 — QUASIMODO in level 1 was negatively assessed and she was not admitted to level 2;

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests the implicit negative decision of the Commission on the administrative complaint against the decision of ERCEA of 5 June 2015 to negatively assess the applicant’s application No 680151 — QUASIMODO in the context of the calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2016 under Horizon 2020 of the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — ‘Horizon 2020’ and the decision not to admit the applicant to level 2.

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

1.First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of transparency

The applicant claims that ERCEA’s actions infringe the principle of transparency. The assessment bases were neither set out in the ‘Guidelines for Applicants’ nor consistently stated in the decision of 5 June 2015.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equality

In addition, it is claimed that, as a result of its undifferentiated assessment and attacks on the applicant’s economic reputation, the Commission also infringes the principle of equality.

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