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 62020TN0132

Case T-132/20: Action brought on 28 February 2020 — NEC Oncoimmunity v EASME

IO C 161, 11.5.2020, p. 46–47 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

11.5.2020   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/46

Action brought on 28 February 2020 — NEC Oncoimmunity v EASME

(Case T-132/20)

(2020/C 161/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NEC Oncoimmunity A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: T. Nordby, R. Bråthen and O. Brouwer, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

in primary order, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU:

—

annul the contested decision (decision of 16 December 2019 terminating the participation of the applicant in the procedure H2020/EIC/SMEInst-2018-2020-2 in relation to the MEDIVAC(850078) project);

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs and the costs of any intervening parties.

—

in subsidiary order, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU:

—

declare that the contested decision is in breach of the defendant’s contractual obligations;

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs and the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law in relation to its heads of claim under Article 263 TFEU and one plea in law in relation to its heads of claim under Article 272 TFEU.

1.

First plea in law under Article 263 TFEU, alleging that the defendant has committed an error in law and misapplied the eligibility criteria for the SME Instrument grant laid down in Regulation No 1290/2013. (1)

2.

Second plea in law under Article 263 TFEU, alleging that the defendant has committed an error in law as the contested decision is in breach of the principle of equal treatment.

3.

Third plea in law under Article 263 TFEU, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

4.

Single plea in law under Article 272 TFEU, alleging that the contested decision results, notably because of the identified error in the interpretation of the applicable law and discriminatory practice, also in a misinterpretation and breach of the contractual obligations vis-à-vis the applicant.

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 laying down the rules for participation and dissemination in ‘Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)’ and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 81)

Top