Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62015TN0603

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

OJ C 48, 8.2.2016, p. 52–53 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.2.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/52

Action brought on 23 October 2015 –Frank v Commission

(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.
Top