Action brought on 22 October 2009 - SE.RI.FO v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

(Case T-438/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Serifo Srl (Naples, Italy) (represented by: R. de Lorenzo, P. Kivel Mazuy and G. Ruberto, lawyers)

Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency ('EACEA')

Form of order sought

Annul the measure, the date and particulars of which are not known, by which, in the context of the Lifelong Learning Programme, the EACEA approved the list of projects selected for Community co-financing from the transversal programme 'KA3 ICT Multilateral Projects', and the reserve list, in so far as the project 'V-3DAS' No 505690-2009-LLP-IT-KA3-KA3MP, submitted by Se.Ri.Fo s.r.l., was included in the reserve list instead of in the list of projects selected for funding.

Annul the notice of 21 September 2009, received on 22 September 2009, by which the EACEA communicated to Se.Ri.Fo. s.r.l. the assessments of the 'V-3DAS' project issued by the experts external to the EACEA and the scores awarded.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant took part in the Community Lifelong Learning Programme - Call for Proposals 2009, submitting to the EACEA the V-3DAS project in the context of the transversal programme Key Activity 3 'ICT'.

The assessment of the applications was undertaken by experts external to the Agency, in accordance with the Guide for Applicants 2009. After obtaining 30.5 points out of a maximum of 40 (76.3% of the maximum score) - as compared with the 31 points necessary in order to be included in the list of projects selected for funding (77.5% of the maximum score) - the project submitted by the applicant was included in the reserve list, which may be used for the award of additional grants if funds become available following withdrawal of approved projects or following an increase in the budget for the Programme.

In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the assessments of its project by EACEA's external experts, and consequently the points awarded by them for each of the award criteria, are vitiated by the inadequate reasoning given, the misapplication of the assessment criteria and the inherently contradictory and illogical nature of the evaluations made. Those irregularities played a decisive role in the exclusion - by no more than 0.5 points - of the applicant's project from the list of projects selected for funding.

In that connection, it should be pointed out that Article 109 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities states, in relation to the award of grants, that 'The award of grants shall be subject to the principles of transparency and equal treatment'.

____________