This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TJ0208
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2018.
Graziano Ranocchia v European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA).
Research and technological development — Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2015 — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — Horizon 2020 — Decision of the ERCEA declaring ineligible the proposal submitted by the applicant — Project concerning the identification of mathematical algorithms facilitating the reading and analysis of certain ancient manuscripts — Misuse of powers — Error of fact — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment.
Case T-208/16.
Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 5 February 2018.
Graziano Ranocchia v European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA).
Research and technological development — Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2015 — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — Horizon 2020 — Decision of the ERCEA declaring ineligible the proposal submitted by the applicant — Project concerning the identification of mathematical algorithms facilitating the reading and analysis of certain ancient manuscripts — Misuse of powers — Error of fact — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment.
Case T-208/16.
Court reports – general
Case T‑208/16
Graziano Ranocchia
v
European Research Council Executive Agency
(Research and technological development — Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2015 — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — Horizon 2020 — Decision of the ERCEA declaring ineligible the proposal submitted by the applicant — Project concerning the identification of mathematical algorithms facilitating the reading and analysis of certain ancient manuscripts — Misuse of powers — Error of fact — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment)
Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 5 February 2018
Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Misuse of powers — Meaning
(Art. 263 TFEU)
Industry — Action necessary to ensure the competitiveness of industry — Research and technological development — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020) — Assessment of projects submitted following a call for proposals — Judicial review — Limits
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1290/2013, Art. 15)
Industry — Action necessary to ensure the competitiveness of industry — Research and technological development — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020) — Assessment of projects submitted following a call for proposals — Expression by an evaluator of a scientific assessment criticizing a proposal — Conduct not constituting in itself a conflict of interests
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1290/2013, Art. 15)
Judicial proceedings — Measures of organisation of procedure — Request for production of documents — Duties of the person making the request
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 88(1) and (2))
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 69)
In the case of complex assessments, the EU authorities enjoy, in some areas of EU law, a broad discretion, so that review by the EU judicature of those assessments must be confined to verifying whether the rules on procedure and on the statement of reasons have been complied with, whether the facts on which the contested choice is based have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error of assessment or misuse of powers.
The same is true of the scientific assessment of a research proposal by a panel of experts from the European Research Council (ERC) and individual reviewers from the disciplines concerned. In that regard, any discrepancy between the majority view of the individual reviewers and the panel’s final decision is not capable of demonstrating that the panel pursued an objective other than scientific excellence, infringed the ERC rules or committed a manifest error of assessment. Any divergence between the sum of the individual assessments and the decision of the panel is part of the normal course of the procedure for evaluating the scientific value and relevance of a research proposal. Thus, unless it can be demonstrated that there are factual errors or a manifest error of assessment, the possibility that an argument raised in a single individual assessment might persuade the panel during its discussions falls within the normal course of the scientific evaluation procedure and does not infringe the ERC rules.
(see paras 70, 71, 76, 77, 80)
In the absence of other elements, a conflict of interest situation cannot simply be inferred from the expression of a scientific assessment criticising a research proposal submitted following a call for proposals under a work programme of the European Research Council (ERC) which has not been included in the list of approved proposals. In addition, the fact that the reasons for scientific misconduct proceedings led against the author of the proposal by a third party — which resulted in the exclusion of an individual evaluator for reasons related to a conflict of interest —, coincide with the comments of an evaluator who assisted the ERC panel of experts, cannot, in itself and in the absence of other evidence, constitute sufficient grounds to conclude that there was a conflict of interest.
(see paras 88-90)
See the text of the decision.
(see para. 143)