This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019TN0314
Case T-314/19: Action brought on 22 May 2019 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v Commission
Case T-314/19: Action brought on 22 May 2019 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v Commission
Case T-314/19: Action brought on 22 May 2019 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v Commission
OJ C 230, 8.7.2019, p. 64–65
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
8.7.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 230/64 |
Action brought on 22 May 2019 — Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v Commission
(Case T-314/19)
(2019/C 230/77)
Language of the case: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation (Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain) (represented by: P. Palacios Pesquera and M. Ríus Coma, lawyers).
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
— |
Declare the application, and the pleas in law contained therein, admissible; |
— |
Uphold the pleas in law put raised in the application and, accordingly:
|
— |
Order the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action has been brought against the closure of the inter partes procedure in respect of the project FP7-KBBE-2013-613647 BREADGUARD grant agreement, which was the subject of the request for redress dismissed by notice of 22 March 2019.
In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea, alleging that TECNALIA did not infringe the grant agreement
|
2. |
Second plea, alleging that Article II.38 of the grant agreement was wrongfully applied.
|
3. |
Third plea, alleging that Article II.38(1)(l) of Annex II to the grant agreement was wrongfully applied
|
4. |
Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article II.23(5) of Annex II to the grant agreement
|
5. |
Fifth plea, alleging that the acknowledgement of the findings by one of the beneficiaries is irrelevant
|