This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016TN0208
Case T-208/16: Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Ranocchia v ERCEA
Case T-208/16: Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Ranocchia v ERCEA
Case T-208/16: Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Ranocchia v ERCEA
OJ C 243, 4.7.2016, p. 38–39
(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 243/38 |
Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Ranocchia v ERCEA
(Case T-208/16)
(2016/C 243/42)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Graziano Ranocchia (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Intino, lawyer)
Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (Brussels, Belgium)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the decision of the ERCEA Redress Committee of 26 February 2016 (Ref: Ares(2016)1020667 — 29/02/2016), issued following the formal redress request submitted on 22 December 2016 vis-à-vis the Evaluation Letter of Dr José Labastida of 17 December 2015 (Ref: Ares(2015)5922529); |
|
— |
annul the Evaluation Letter of Dr José Labastida of 17 December 2015 (Ref: Ares(2015)5922529) and all documents connected with those mentioned above, including the list of projects approved by the ERC-Cog-2015 SH5-Cultures and Cultural Production panel, which was made public by the ERCEA by press release of 12 February 2016; |
|
— |
annul any prior, subsequent or connected measures. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his action, the applicant alleges a misuse of powers, on the grounds that the evaluation is manifestly unreasonable, that there has been a distortion of the facts on which the decision not to approve the proposal is based, and that the ERCEA’s rules on evaluating proposals have been infringed.
The applicant submits that the selection procedures concerned have been vitiated with regard to both the objective and subjective scope of evaluation.
As regards the first point, the applicant argues that there is a total lack of consistency between the (extremely positive) evaluations of the individual committee members and the final overall evaluation (rejection of the proposal), and that there has been an incorrect application of the evaluation criteria.
As regards the second point, the applicant focuses on what he considers to be a false representation of the acts and facts which led to the decision not to approve the proposal. He draws particular attention to the incorrect interpretation of the criterion of ‘excellence’ for the purposes of the evaluation.