Judgment of the Court Second Chamber of 14 July 2022, Universität Bremen v REA, C-110/21

• Date: 14 July 2022
• Year: 2022

13

interests, within the meaning of the settled case- law of the Court of Justice.

26

The action for

annulment of that instruction is, therefore, inadmissible.

According to the General Court, that instruction did not prevent the applic ants from carrying out the

administrative steps necess ary for them to take office and exercise their mandate and, therefore, did

not result in the applicants being u nable to exercise the rights associated with their status as

Members of the European Parliament from the opening of the first session following the elections,

that is to say, from 2 July 2019.

III. LEGAL REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE EU COURTS

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2022, Universität Bremen v REA,

C-110/21

Link to the full text of the judgment

Appeal – Action for annulment – Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union –

Representation of non-privileged parties in a direct action before the Courts of the European Union –

University teacher – University teacher teaching at the universit y represented in that action and

performing duties as coordinator and head of the project that is the subject matter of the dispute –

Condition of independence – Existence of a direct and personal interest in the outcome of the dispute

The University of Bremen was appointed coordinator of a research consortium comprising several

European universities, carrying out interdisciplinary comparative law research in the field of tenancy

law and housing policy throughout the European Union.

On 17 March 2019, following a call for proposals, the University of Bremen submitted a project

proposal to the European Research Executive Agency (REA). That proposal obtained a score that put it

in 10th place out of all applications submitted. By decision of 16 July 2019,

27

the REA rejected that

proposal since, due to budgetary constraints, it could select only the projects ranked in the first three

places. On 25 September 2019, the University of Bremen brou ght an action seeking annulment of that

decision.

By order of 16 December 2020,

28

the General Court dismissed that action as manifestly

inadmissible

29

on the ground that the professor representing the university concerned was not a

third party in relation to that university and that, conse quently, he did not satisfy the condition of

independence laid down in the Statute of the Court of Justice.

30

Ruling on the appeal brought by the U niversity of Bremen, the Court of Justice sets aside that order of

the General Court on the ground that the General Court erred in c oncluding that the action was

manifestly inadmissible. In that context, it provides clarification concerning the condition of

26

See above, footnote 20

27

Decision Ares (2019) 4590599 of the REA of 16 July 2019.

28

Order of 16 December 2020, Universität Bremen v REA (T-660/19, no t published, EU:T:2020:633).

29

Within the meaning of Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the Ge neral Court.

30

See Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘ the Statute of the Court of Justice’).