# C_2021088EN.01003302.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/33

---

Action brought on 31 December 2020 — The Floow v Commission

(Case T-765/20)

(2021/C 88/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Floow Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Howard, Barrister, and J. Berry, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, in whole or part, the decision of the Commission C(2020) 8138 final, dated 17 November 2020, ordering the recovery of Horizon 2020 grant monies amounting to EUR 161 990,80 plus interest, in respect of the audited period, and set aside the debit note referred to in Article 1 of the decision; or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in whole or part, the decision of the Commission C(2020) 8138 final, dated 17 November 2020, ordering the recovery of Horizon 2020 grant monies amounting to EUR 161 990,80 plus interest, in respect of the audited period, and set aside the debit note referred to in Article 1 of the decision; or

| — | in the alternative, remit the matter to the Commission to reconsider and restate the lower level of any deduction (if any) that may properly arise in light of the principles established by the Court; or |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, remit the matter to the Commission to reconsider and restate the lower level of any deduction (if any) that may properly arise in light of the principles established by the Court; or

| — | in the further alternative, exercise the Court’s own jurisdiction to restate the applicable adjustment that should apply in the light of any changes made to eligible direct and indirect costs, as the General Court considers appropriate; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, exercise the Court’s own jurisdiction to restate the applicable adjustment that should apply in the light of any changes made to eligible direct and indirect costs, as the General Court considers appropriate; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed serious errors of law, assessment of fact, appreciation, lack of reasoning and procedural irregularities in assessing the compliance of applicant with the time-recording requirements in the Grant Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed serious errors of law, assessment of fact, appreciation, lack of reasoning and procedural irregularities in assessing the compliance of applicant with the time-recording requirements in the Grant Agreement.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law, appreciation and reasoning in failing to ensure that the adjustments made to the declared costs were fair and proportionate in the light of all the circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law, appreciation and reasoning in failing to ensure that the adjustments made to the declared costs were fair and proportionate in the light of all the circumstances.

---