HORIZON EUROPE'S LEGAL, FINANCIAL & ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

The Grant Agreement and the Annotated Grant Agreement are well understood and actively used by beneficiaries. The AGA is widely valued for its practical explanations, although users would welcome further improvements in clarity, usability and timely publication of updated versions.

The EC's corporate approach to harmonising Grant Agreements is viewed positively, but its benefits are not perceived equally by all beneficiaries, indicating a need for stronger communication of its advantages.

Consortium Agreements are perceived as effective in defining roles, responsibilities, financial arrangements and decision-making processes. In contrast, provisions on risk management and conflict resolution are seen as less clear or less consistently applied.

Beneficiaries continue to rely predominantly on the DESCA model. Integrating CA processes into the F&T Portal and strengthening guidance and training on CA negotiation and implementation would help beneficiaries navigate this area more confidently.

Personnel costs are the area where beneficiaries face the greatest practical difficulties. Challenges increase markedly during project implementation, with terms such as "complex", "unclear", "error-prone" or "time-consuming" frequently used.

The calculation of the daily rate remains the most challenging aspect. The shift to day-equivalents is frequently described as confusing, and many beneficiaries would prefer returning to the more intuitive approach based on hours and hourly rates.

Lump sum funding has taken a positive step in reducing complexity. The Personnel Unit Cost option offers potential only if significantly adapted — especially through mechanisms that allow the rate to be updated over time.

Subcontracting is generally considered low-risk, yet many beneficiaries do not consistently follow core compliance principles. Travel, equipment and FSTP costs are not perceived as problematic categories — challenges arise mainly from internal processes rather than HE rules.

Internally invoiced goods and services are used relatively infrequently and are associated with uncertainty. In-kind contributions free-of-charge are rarely used; clearer guidance with concrete examples would help beneficiaries understand and correctly apply this scheme.

The MSCA unit-cost funding model is well-established and efficient. Key challenges include co-financing needs, mandatory deductions in host countries, and underpayment of researchers. Institutional contributions would benefit from a review and potential increase.

The proposal preparation and submission phase is widely perceived as demanding and time-consuming, leading 29% of respondents to seek paid consultancy services — across all types of institutions and countries.

In the evaluation phase, a large proportion of beneficiaries still perceive a risk of subjectivity. Clearer communication of evaluation practices and stronger consistency across panels could help strengthen confidence.

The Grant Agreement Preparation phase is generally rated as straightforward and easy to understand, suggesting current EC procedures work well and should be largely maintained.

During implementation and reporting, beneficiaries most frequently point to the preparation of financial reports, coordination with partners and preparation for audits as main challenges. Beneficiaries would welcome simplified reporting templates and clearer guidance documents.

The amendment process is generally perceived as effective and predictable. However, the Simplified Approval Procedure remains little known, indicating a need for more systematic awareness-raising.

While many beneficiaries appreciate NCP support, a significant share either do not engage with them or are unaware of their existence — stronger visibility and communication efforts are needed.

Many beneficiaries continue to struggle with the search functionality of the F&T Portal. Improvements such as more effective keyword searches, free-text search and AI-based suggestions would be welcomed.

The Partner Search Tool remains rarely used and only exceptionally successful in helping identify suitable consortium partners. It would be useful for the EC to assess the tool's current effectiveness and explore options for improving its usability and visibility.

The Proposal Submission System experience is generally positive — many users find the process clear and easy, indicating the system functions well overall.

The Research Enquiry Service does not yet meet beneficiaries' expectations. Many are either unaware of the service or dissatisfied with the quality of responses, describing them as generic, delayed or insufficiently helpful.

Broader suggestions include resolving simultaneous editing issues, improving data export options, enabling better automation and validation features, enhancing search tools and stabilising the system during peak usage.

Across communication, open science, gender equality, ethics and data protection, beneficiaries report high awareness and understanding. However, implementing these requirements in daily project management remains challenging — the most cited barriers are insufficient staff capacity, limited budgets and a lack of structured training.

Guidance in some areas — particularly ethics, research integrity and GDPR — is not always sufficiently detailed or easy to interpret. Beneficiaries would welcome more practical examples, targeted training and opportunities for peer-learning.

While some beneficiaries actively pursue exploitation activities, many do not systematically follow up on their obligations or lack clarity on what qualifies as a project result. Greater visibility of exploitation examples and success stories would help.

The EU's dedicated exploitation tools (Horizon Results Platform, Results Booster, Innovation Radar, European IP Helpdesk, Enterprise Europe Network) have generally low uptake, but respondents who used them consistently rated them as helpful — suggesting that increased visibility and proactive promotion would be beneficial.

Beneficiaries report relatively few IP-related conflicts, indicating that HE rules and the Consortium Agreement provide a solid framework for intellectual property management.