Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62015TN0376

    Case T-376/15: Action brought on 28 April 2016 — KK v EASME

    IO C 243, 4.7.2016, p. 33–33 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    4.7.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 243/33

    Action brought on 28 April 2016 — KK v EASME

    (Case T-376/15)

    (2016/C 243/35)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: KK (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer)

    Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME)

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul the decision of 15 June 2015, by which EASME rejected the applicant’s proposal;

    —

    order EASME to pay the sum of EUR 50 000 in compensation for the loss of opportunity, and EUR 90 800 in compensation for material damage suffered by the applicant;

    —

    order EASME to pay all the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law in support of its claim for annulment.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging the technical inaccessibility of the Internet portal where the applicant’s proposal in response to the call for proposals and related activities under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-20) should have been submitted.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant, contrary to what is contended by EASME, did not fraudulently sign the commitment when submitting its proposal file.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging that the rejection of the proposal submitted by the applicant is contrary to the competition rules.

    The applicant also relies on two pleas in law in support of its claim for compensation.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging that the applicant suffered material damage relating to the loss of opportunity.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant suffered material damage resulting from the time dedicated to responding to the call for proposals.
    Top