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-706/14: Action brought on 3 October 2014 — Holistic Innovation Institute v REA

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014TN0706

62014TN0706

October 3, 2014
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

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/44

(Case T-706/14)

2014/C 421/62

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Muñiz García, lawyer)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul the contested decision excluding the applicant from the INACHUS and ZONeSEC projects;

compensate the applicant and order the defendant to pay the amount of EUR 781 250, corresponding to the two projects from which it has been excluded, together with interest at the statutory rate from when the payments were to accrue; and

compensate the applicant and order the defendant to pay the amount determined by the expert appointed by the General Court, for the additional harm that exclusion from the projects caused to the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the decision of the Research Executive Agency of the European Commission of 24 July 2014, reference ARES (2014) 2461172, terminating negotiations and rejecting the participation of the applicant in the European projects INACHUS (607522) and ZONeSEC (607292) of the Call for Proposals FP7-SEC-2013-1 of the Seventh Framework Programme.

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

1.The decision is manifestly unfounded, containing a mere ostensible statement of reasons.

2.The independent evaluators reported favourably on projects in which the applicant company participated.

3.After those reports, the defendant changed the criteria as a retaliatory measure against the director of the applicant, who had previously brought proceedings against the European Commission in connection with a dispute relating to the company Rose Visión S.L.

4.The agents of the defendant put pressure on the other participants in the projects to exclude the applicant before the decision, in an attempt thereby to avoid having to take the contested decision.

5.The defendant’s conduct caused the applicant damage and prejudicial consequences.

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