21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/37

(Case T-328/23)

(2023/C 296/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Radical-Consulting UG (Randowtal, Germany), Surf BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften (München, Germany) (represented by: M. Martens, K. Munungu and B. Mourisse, lawyers)

Defendant: European High-Performance Computing Joint Undertaking

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—declare that the application for annulment of the contested decisions is admissible and well-founded;

—annul the decision of EuroHPC of 11 August 2022 rejecting the proposal submitted by the consortium of which the Applicants are a member;

—annul the decision of EuroHPC of 4 April 2023 rejecting the evaluation review; and,

—order EuroHPC to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the decision of EuroHPC contains multiple factual errors and thus EuroHPC made a substantial error in appreciation, in violation of the principles of good administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons as enshrined in Article 296(2) TFEU.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the transparency principle enshrined in Article 29(3) of Regulation 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination (‘Horizon Europe regulation’).

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the EuroHPC made a manifest error in appreciation by manifestly misapplying Article 30(2) of the Horizon Europe Regulation.