Information days

ERC Grants: what to expect in 2026 calls

24 September 2025

9.30 - 11.30 CEST

Online

ERCEA

English

The ERC has introduced some novelties in the 2026 Work Programme. This info session is designed to help applicants understand how these changes will apply to the submission of applications and evaluation of proposals, ensuring they are well-prepared for the upcoming calls for the Starting, Consolidator and Advanced Grants.

Participants will receive practical guidance on the application process with a focus on:

the new proposal structure
the updated rules for the extension of the eligibility period
the additional relocation funding
the new resubmission restrictions

While the session is open to researchers based in EU Member States and Horizon Europe Associated Countries, the ERC encourages those in Widening countries to attend, in line with the efforts to increase success rates in countries hosting few ERC grantees.

Note on budget justification

Following the webinar, we have received many questions on where to include the justification for the requested budget in the proposal. In view of this, we would like to clarify and reiterate the information provided in the Information for Applicants and in the Part B2 template of the submission form on the proposal budget and where to include your justification for the requested budget in your proposal. This states:

"The justification for the requested budget and resources should be explained under the 'Resources' Section in the online submission form (Part A, Section 3 - Budget). Part II of the Scientific Proposal cannot deviate from the Resources section, but may include additional justification where necessary when describing the methodology, work plan, etc."

The budget table and the description of resources (Part A, Section 3 - Budget) will be made available to the experts evaluating the proposal at Step 2 together with Parts B1 and B2, i.e. Parts I and II of the scientific proposal.

Name

Webinar: ERC Grants: what to expect in 2026 calls

This info session is designed to help applicants to ERC calls understand how changes in the ERC Work Programme 2026 apply to the submission of applications and evaluation of proposals. Hosted by Martin Penny, Head of the Communication Unit at ERCEA, the session will focus on the 2026 calls for the Starting, Consolidator and Advanced Grants.

Duration

Find below the responses to questions raised during the webinar, grouped by topic.

Scientific Proposal

For Starting, Consolidator, Advanced and Synergy Grants, excellence is the sole criterion of evaluation.

The panels will primarily evaluate:

▪ the ground-breaking nature and ambition of the research project.

At the same time, the panels will evaluate:

▪ the intellectual capacity and creativity of the Principal Investigator(s), with a focus on the extent to which the Principal Investigator(s) has the required scientific expertise and capacity to successfully execute the project.

Scientific Proposal Structure (2026)

From 2026, the scientific proposal is structured into:

Part I (max. 5 pages)
Part I should make a compelling case why the proposal is an original, creative idea about an important question in the research field(s) and how the project will advance knowledge. It should lay out the current state of knowledge, the major open question(s) and objectives of the project, as well as the overall approach or research strategy to reach the project goals.

In Step 1: Panel members acting as generalists see only Part I of the Scientific proposal (prepare it accordingly). Part I therefore forms the basis for the Panel’s decision whether to evaluate the proposal in the next step. All essential information must be covered in this section.

Part II (max. 7 pages for StG/CoG/AdG)

This should be a detailed explanation of the project implementation (feasibility), including research methodology, work plan, risk assessment, and mitigating measures.

The two parts of the proposal should be complementary and not redundant. Part II should not duplicate Part I and will be evaluated only at Step 2. In Part II, you may refer to the objectives outlined in Part I to ensure space efficiency.

At Step 2, reviewers -including both panel members and external referees- will have access to the complete scientific proposal, i.e. both Part I and Part II and the budget section (jjustification for the requested budget and resources - section C_Resources). Panels have to ensure that the requested resources are reasonable and well justified.

References should be included in both Part I and Part II of the scientific proposal. As in any academic work, they are important for supporting the proposal’s content.

Preliminary results may be included in Part I or II depending if they are important to support the proposed project. However, they are not mandatory, and a proposal will not be rejected solely based on the absence of preliminary results. This is up to the Principal Investigator to decide what they want to include in their proposal.

All figures and information that you want the panel to evaluate must be included in the main body of the proposal, either in Part I or Part II. Panel members will not have access to any annexes or additional material, and they will not evaluate content that exceeds the page limits. References and the Funding ID section are not counted towards these page limits.

The templates of Part B1 and Part B2 that are provided in the submission system (zip-file) should be used. With the change of the page limits, it is even more important that you use your space wisely, making sure all essential information is included in the research proposal.

An ERC application is composed of:

the administrative form (Part A) including the detailed budget table, description of resources (Section 3 – Budget) and time commitment (Section 5 – Other questions);
completed Part B1 template (composed of Part I of the Scientific Proposal, Curriculum Vitae and Track Record);
completed Part B2 template (composed of Part II of the Scientific Proposal and funding ID table);
mandatory documentation (PhD certificate, Host institution support letter, and, if relevant, any documentation needed to support a request for eligibility extension);
if applicable, additional supporting documentation related to ethics and security issues.

Budget and Resources

Requested resources must be detailed in:

Part A (Section C - Resources)

Please note that the justification for the requested budget and resources should be explained under the “Resources” Section in the online submission form (Part A, Section 3 - Budget). Part II of the Scientific Proposal cannot deviate from the Resources section but can include additional justification where necessary when describing the methodology, workplan etc.

The indirect costs are automatically calculated based on the costs requested. Applicants do not need to justify indirect costs in the budget justification (nor in part II of the scientific proposal); only direct costs require explanation.

Use of AI and External Assistance

Applicants may use AI tools or editing support (e.g., for language), but full authorship responsibility lies with the applicant, who must adhere to scientific integrity standards.

Eligibility

1.Host Institution (HI)

The HI must support the proposal via a binding Host Institution Support Letter, confirming the PI’s independence if selected.
The PI does not need to be employed by the HI at application stage but must be engaged for the duration of the grant.
Eligible HIs: Any type of legal entity, public or private, including a university, a research organisation, or an undertaking can host a Principal Investigator and their team. To participate in ERC frontier research actions the Host Institution must be established either in an EU Member State or an Associated Country as a legal entity created under national law, or it may be an international European research organisation (such as the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), etc.), or any other entity created under EU law.

2. Project Participation

For StG, CoG, and AdG, the HI is usually the sole participating legal entity.
Where they bring scientific added value to the project, additional team members may be hosted by additional legal entities which may be established anywhere, including outside the European Union or Associated Countries, or international organizations. This should be justified in the proposal and the final decision on accepting the budget breakdown is always the responsibility of the review panel.
Other legal entities established outside the EU or an Associated Country may be funded if their role is essential and provided that they are not under EU sanctions.

3. Submission and Resubmission Restrictions

Only one application to a main ERC grant (StG, CoG, AdG, SyG) is allowed per call year (under the same Workprogramme). If multiple applications are submitted, only the first eligible proposal will be evaluated.
For 2026 calls, applicants may apply to any ERC call for which they meet the eligibility criteria, regardless of whether they have previously held an ERC grant or not. For example, a Consolidator Grant (CoG) applicant will not necessarily have been a Starting Grant (StG) grantee, and an Advanced Grant (AdG) applicant will not necessarily have been a StG and/or CoG grantee.
A researcher participating as a Principal Investigator in one of the ERC main frontier research grants may not submit another proposal for an ERC main frontier research grant, unless the existing project ends in less than two years following the call deadline. See ERC WP 2026 (p. 22) for more information.
Resubmission rules apply based on previous evaluation outcomes. For example:
Step 1 B and C (2025 main calls) → ineligible for 2026 calls.
Step 2 B (2025 main calls) → eligible for 2026 calls.
Inadmissible, ineligible, or withdrawn proposals do not count toward resubmission restrictions.
For a detailed explanation of the resubmission rules, please see Section 1.4.3 of the ERC WP 2026 and Table 6 included therein.

4. Medical Degrees

A medical degree alone is not considered equivalent to a PhD.
Applicants must provide:
- The Medical degree certificate.
- Either a PhD certificate or proof of an appointment that requires doctoral equivalency (e.g. postdoc).
- Research experience documentation (e.g. publications).
Eligibility reference date = either medical degree + 2 years or PhD defence date, whichever is the earliest degree that makes the applicant eligible.

Extensions to Eligibility Window

Applicants can request extensions if properly documented. Unless otherwise specified, extensions to the eligibility period can only be granted for circumstances or events that have occurred or were present in the period following the Principal Investigator’s PhD Defence Date up until the deadline of the respective call for proposals. Valid extension reasons are:

Maternity leave: 18 months per child born before or after the Principal Investigator’s PhD defence date (or actual documented time if longer).
Paternity/parental leave: actual time taken, full or part-time, including adoption taken for each child born before or after the Principal Investigator’s PhD Defence Date.
Long-term illness: leave taken/ reduced working capacity due to an illness lasting over 90 days, affecting the PI or a close family member.
Other reasons: military service, clinical training (max 4 years), reduced amount of working time (including leave taken) due to PI’s disability, inability to work for a minimum of 90 days due to major disaster, inability to work due to asylum-seeking or due to violence (including gender-based violence). See Table 4, Section 1.4.2.2 of the ERC WP 2026 for details.
COVID-19 disruptions are not valid reasons for extensions unless related to one of the circumstances mentioned in the Work Programme and properly documented (e.g. long-term illness or parental leave). Any other disruption (including COVID-19 disruption) may be described in the CV (Part B1) to explain particular career paths but not to extend the eligibility window.

Only the circumstances stated in the ERC WP 2026 are considered valid for requesting an extension to the eligibility window. Other circumstances (e.g. unemployment or working outside of research) are not one of the valid reasons for extension foreseen in the ERC WP 2026.

Supporting documents must:

Be signed by the employer or relevant authority.
Clearly state dates, duration, reason, and part-time/full-time nature if applicable.
For illness or disability: include medical documents confirming the long-term nature of the condition as well as from a doctor or from the employer confirming the time taken off work, or the percentage of impact a given condition has had on the applicant’s working time.

All requests are reviewed individually by the Admissibility and Eligibility Review Committee, which may request further documentation after the call deadline.

6. PhD Defence Date

The reference date to calculate eligibility is the date of successful defence of the first PhD.
If the PhD certificate does not clearly mention this date, provide:

Written confirmation from the awarding institution mentioning clearly the date of the PhD defence. Applicants may find in the Information for Applicants (page 61) a template that they can request the awarding institution to fill in.
In case the defence was not successful, a document clearly confirming that the defence was not successful and the date on which corrections were approved.
If no defence occurred, a letter confirming this and stating the PhD approval date (not award date).

7. Career Stage and Early Applications

Success rates are similar across the eligibility window, but we advise to apply early so that applicants have the possibility to reapply. Success rate of reapplicants is higher than of first-time applicants.
Panels consider the time that has passed since the PhD/ the PI’s career stage when assessing CVs.

8. Transitional Arrangements

Applicants hosted by Host Institutions established in countries negotiating their association to Horizon Europe (e.g. Morocco, Egypt, Switzerland) may be treated as eligible, depending on the status of these negotiations at the moment of their application. Eligibility to apply for an ERC grant does not guarantee that these applicants will be able to sign the ERC grant, if selected for funding. See the Funding & Tenders portal for updates.

9. Time and Place Commitment

Applicants must meet the minimum time commitments required for their grant (e.g. for CoG 40% time on the grant and 50% time spent in the EU/Associated Country). If the proposal is transferred to a different Host institution, arrangements should be discussed in advance.

10. Career Paths

Any researcher meeting the eligibility criteria may apply, regardless of current employer or academic path.
Unconventional career paths should be clearly explained in the CV section.

11. Double Funding

Projects or parts of projects cannot be funded by more than one source.
Reusing parts of a previously submitted proposal is not prohibited, but applicants must demonstrate originality and scientific ambition.

PI & CV

1. Profiles

The European Research Council (ERC) supports individual researchers of any nationality and age who wish to pursue their frontier research. Researchers from anywhere in the world can apply for ERC grants provided the research they undertake will be carried out in an EU Member State or Associated Country.

PIs must dedicate a minimum percentage of their working time to the project:

50% for Starting Grant (StG),
40% for Consolidator Grant (CoG),
30% for Advanced Grant (AdG).

In all cases, at least 50% of the PI’s total working time must be spent in an EU Member State or Associated Country. Time spent on necessary fieldwork, even if it takes place outside of an EU Member State or Associated Country, can be counted towards the PI's minimum time commitment. PIs may choose to commit more time to their ERC project (up to 100%) if appropriate.

Projects in Associated Countries follow the same rules and enjoy the same benefits as projects carried out in an EU Member State. For all practical purposes, they are treated the same as projects in an EU Member State.

All ERC projects are expected to be led by a single Principal Investigator, who defines and drives the research agenda. Collaborators are welcome, as the ERC recognises that a PI may not be able to carry out all aspects of the proposed research alone. Therefore, collaborators may be included, for example to cover expertise gaps, but the project must clearly reflect the PI’s own scientific vision. ERC grants are not consortia. The evaluation panel will assess whether the research idea and intellectual leadership lie with the PI.

2. Grant Schemes

Starting Grant (StG) – 2026 Call

PhD Defence Date: Between 1 January 2019 and (inclusive) 31 December 2023 (i.e., 2 to 7 years before 1 January 2026).
Supports excellent researchers who are starting or have recently started an independent research group. It is not required that the applicant leads an independent team at the stage of application.
Applicants should have already shown evidence of potential for research independence, e.g., by having produced at least one significant publication as main author or without participation of their PhD supervisor. Please note that the publication record is not an eligibility criteria. The benchmarks/examples mentioned in the ERC Work Programme 2026 are meant to help applicants to evaluate their track-record and research independence in order to judge their likelihood for success. Applicants will be evaluated by their peers taking into consideration their research career stage.

Consolidator Grant (CoG) – 2026 Call

PhD Defence Date: Between 1 January 2014 and (inclusive) 31 December 2018 (i.e., 7 to 12 years before 1 January 2026).
Aimed at researchers who are consolidating their own independent research team or programme.
Applicants should have already shown evidence of research independence.

Advanced Grant (AdG)

No PhD-based eligibility window.
Intended for established research leaders who are active scientists with a significant record of major scientific achievements.

Note: These are indicative profiles. Applicants must demonstrate their track record and degree of independence in the CV and Track Record section of their proposal.

3. Evaluation of Track Record

Applicants must demonstrate their capacity to carry out the proposed research. The CV and Track Record section (Part B1) should include up to 10 research outputs that best reflect the applicant’s contribution to knowledge. These can include, but are not limited to:

Peer-reviewed publications or preprints (for pre-prints, please do not include any submission proof as annex; panel members will not have access to this material)
Datasets, software, patents, and licenses
Books or book chapters, conference proceedings
Start-ups, standards, or other relevant contributions

Applicants are also encouraged to briefly explain:

The significance of each output
Their role in producing it
How it relates to the proposed project

The format and type of publication or research output may vary depending on the field. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to select outputs most relevant to their discipline. The selection and presentation of outputs is entirely at the applicant’s discretion.

Evaluation panels will assess the PI’s track record in relation to:

the research field
career stage
and personal circumstances (e.g., career breaks or non-academic paths).

The final evaluation of the PI's profile remains at the discretion of the panel, which considers the career context rather than applying uniformed standards.

2. Evaluation Approach

The ERC does not evaluate:

Number of publications
Journal impact factors
Mobility or international experience

Instead, qualitative assessment of scientific content prevails.

The ERC Scientific Council has endorsed the DORA Declaration and signed the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. Reviewers are instructed to focus on substance, not quantity, and to assess outputs in relation to field-specific norms, career stage, personal circumstances and/or unconventional career paths, if applicable.

3. Key Clarifications

The publication record is not an eligibility criterion.
The ERC Work Programme benchmarks are guidance, not thresholds.
Applicants may include any combination of outputs, not limited to monographs or journal articles.
A brief explanation may be provided for each output (significance, role, and relevance).
Recommendation/support letters are not considered during the evaluation and are not provided to the reviewers.

Applicants should strategically assess which and how many outputs to include. There is no obligation to list 10 if fewer are sufficient to demonstrate excellence and capacity.

4. Other Considerations

Peer reviewers assess whether the track record fits the field and career stage.
There is no fixed weight between project and PI evaluation. The panels will primarily evaluate the ground-breaking nature and ambition of the research project. At the same time, the panels will evaluate the intellectual capacity and creativity of the Principal Investigator, with a focus on the extent to which the Principal Investigator has the required scientific expertise and capacity to successfully execute the proposed project.
The project should not be a direct continuation of previous work, but the applicant must show capacity to lead it.

5. Specific notes on the Funding ID

In Part B2, the Funding ID must list:
Any current on-going grants (including e.g. MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships and even if they are not topic-related to the proposed ERC project and if you are not the main PI on the grant)
Pending applications related to the proposal

The funding ID is not used in evaluation but ensures proper management during grant agreement preparation if the proposal is selected for funding. The funding ID section does not count towards the page limits.

Evaluation Panels

Panel choice

Certain panels, such as PE6, PE8, LS7, LS8, and several SH panels, regularly receive considerable numbers of proposals. The budget allocation to each panel is proportional to the total budget requested by all submitted proposals at Step 1, and as a result the success rates are the same across all panels. Since success rate is based on the number of submitted proposals to each panel, the success rate of a panel is independent of the number of interviews at Step 2.

For Starting, Consolidator, and Advanced grants, applicants should select the panel that best matches their proposed research. If hesitant when choosing a panel, applicants may consider what is the biggest breakthrough they a proposing, and submit to the panel most likely to understand this breakthrough. In exceptional cases, a proposal may be moved to another panel when the Panel Chair considers that another panel is better suited or has better expertise to review the proposal. The panel chairs of both panels have to agree on the move.

If an applicant’s proposal is truly interdisciplinary, then they can choose a 'secondary panel' and justify this choice in the submission form; applicants can also choose keywords from another panel. Interdisciplinary proposals will receive reviews from the different panels concerned, but the proposal will only be discussed in the primary panel.

A list of the ERC evaluation panels and the keywords for each panel is given in the Information for Applicants.

Interviews/Step 2

The proposals invited to interview in Step 2 represent the top-ranked proposals; those which are considered the most promising by the panel. For Starting, Consolidator, and Advanced Grants, each panel conducts a maximum of 44 interviews at Step 2 of a given evaluation. This limit is independent from the number of proposals received in a panel and is only a feasibility limit: it represents the maximum amount of interviews that can realistically take place in a week. Hence, the new score 'A not invited' is given to proposals that are very highly ranked at Step 1, which the panel would like to invite for interview, but that will not be invited to Step 2 due to the one-week time limit for interviews.

The exact interview format is decided by the panel, usually it lasts around 30 mins and includes a presentation and Q&A session. The panel meets in person in Brussels, but the applicants join the meeting remotely. The interviews are therefore in hybrid format. Specific instructions are provided to applicants before Step 2 together with interview details. All information on the interview process is available in new ERC Class videos, on the ERC YouTube channel, together with other videos covering all aspects of the ERC application and evaluation process.

Panel members and remote reviewers

Panel members are top scientists and scholars coming from all over the world; they help ERC select the best project proposals. The ERC Scientific Council members personally identify and invite panel members based on their international standing in research and innovation. There are different panels who evaluate StG, CoG, AdG, and SyG. Panel members are active every two years, and can be invited up to four times before they must be replaced by a new panel member. The Panels may be assisted by independent external experts working remotely, which are recommended by the panel members collectively. These experts have access to Part I, Part II, and the proposed budget. Everyone who reviews proposals for the ERC must sign a contract which covers confidentiality of all data, documents or other material (in any form) that is disclosed to them. They are all asked to use the evaluation criteria outlined in the guide for peer reviewers (which can be found here for Advanced Grants, and here for Starting and Consolidator Grants).

When submitting a proposal, applicants for ERC Starting, Consolidator, or Advanced Grant can specify up to three persons they wish to exclude from evaluating their proposal, whereas the Corresponding Principal Investigator in a Synergy Grant proposal can, on behalf of the Group, specify up to four persons they wish to exclude from evaluating their proposal. The persons identified are excluded from the evaluation of the proposal, provided that it is still possible to evaluate the proposal.

Furthermore, conflicts of interest are taken very seriously by the ERC. Panel members with a conflict for any given proposal will be excluded from the room while the project is being discussed, and won't have access to the proposal or the reviews.

Success rate

Success rate is calculated as the number of successful proposals compared to the number of proposals submitted (and is therefore independent of the number of interviews at Step 2). The success rates for Starting Grants (StG) and Consolidator Grants (CoG) typically range from 11% to 15%, depending on the allocated budget and number of submissions. The Scientific Council aims for similar success rates across StG, CoG, and Advanced Grants (AdG).

Newcomers usually have a lower success rate compared to resubmitted proposals. Applicants resubmitting proposals have on average a success rate that is 1.5 times higher than the one of first submissions. Principal Investigators (PIs) are not required to have held a StG to apply for CoG or AdG, and previous ERC grant holders are treated the same as any other applicants.

The success rate for Synergy Grants (SyG) typically ranges from 7% to 10%, depending on the number of submissions and the allocated budget. There are no significant differences in the success rates of proposals depending on the number of PIs. However, proposals with one PI in a Host institution from outside the EU (not from an EU Member State or Associated Country) consistently achieve a slightly higher success rates than those without outside-EU PIs.

Additional Funding

Purpose and Amount 

Applicants may request additional funding of: 
- Up €1 million, or
- Up to €2 million for researchers relocating to the EU or an Associated Country from elsewhere to take up an ERC grant. 
This funding is meant to cover relatively large costs which go beyond the standard amounts, necessary to carry out the proposed work. Such as (but not limited to): start-up costs, major/high value equipment (including the costs necessary for the equipment to be operational), access to large facilities, major experimental or field work costs, other significant project-related costs. The applicant’s decision to include certain costs under additional funding (vs standard funding) should take into consideration the purpose and conditions of the additional funding as well as the project context.

Conditions and Justification 

Requests for additional funding must be:
Duly justified in the proposal narrative and explained in the Section C – Resources
Included in the appropriate budget category(ies) in the financial table (in the proposal there is no budget line specific for the additional funding)
These costs must:
comply with Horizon Europe’s general eligibility rules and the ones specific for the cost category they belong to (e.g. costs related to a purchase of major equipment must also fulfil the specific eligibility conditions for the cost category for “Equipment”) – see Model Grant Agreement for reference
be incurred for the activities and objectives for which the additional funding may be awarded.
Additional funding can be requested regardless of the applicant’s location, but the higher ceiling (€2M) applies only to applicants relocating to the EU/Associated Countries from elsewhere to take up the ERC grant.  Moving within or between EU member states and Associated Countries is not considered as ‘relocation’ to EU/Associated Country to take up the grant in the context of additional funding eligible for the 2 million extra budget. Start-up costs might include (not limited to) the relocation of the laboratory/team; recruitment costs, initial equipment or consumables linked to the move of the PI to a new HI; personnel costs. Like the rest of the project costs, they might be claimed only if they are in line with the normal practice and the accounting policy of the host institution and incurred within the duration of the project.
The updated work programme 2026 now includes personnel costs in the additional funding, which was not the case in previous work programmes. Personnel costs might be covered as long as they are essential for carrying out the project. The panel will assess this on a case-by-case basis. However, the evaluation will not focus on factors like salary indexing or high salary levels, but rather on the actual need for the personnel to contribute to the project's success and justifying an extra budget.
Field work or research activities conducted outside the EU/Associated Countries are not excluded, provided they are justified and scientifically necessary. 
For actual cost grants, the Principal Investigator can request to modify the budgetary breakdown during the project. Requests to modify the budgetary breakdown of additional funding may only be accepted provided that the objectives for which the additional funding was awarded remain unchanged. Examples for accepted and non-accepted cases can be consulted on page 123-124 of the Annotated Model Grant Agreement

Evaluation Process 

Excellence remains the sole evaluation criterion — the quality of the proposed research and the Principal Investigator is what matters most. 
Evaluation panels will assess whether: 
The additional funding is necessary and justified in the context of the project 
The requested costs are reasonable and aligned with the proposal’s scope.  
Panels may approve or reject the request for additional funding independently of the proposal itself: 
A rejected funding request does not result in rejection of the proposal 
It would only lead to a reduction in the awarded budget

Team members & Collaborators

ERC grants are open to researchers of any nationality currently working anywhere in the world. The application must be submitted with a host institution (any type of legal entity) in one of the EU Member States or one of the countries associated to Horizon Europe Pillar I. A list of the Associated Countries is available on the Funding and Tenders portal.  The HI may also be an International European Interest Organisation (e.g. CERN, EMBL), or an entity established under EU law. International organisations with headquarters in an EU Member State or an Associated Country shall be deemed to be established in that Member State or Associated Country.

Where they bring added scientific value to the project, additional team members may be hosted by other legal entities, which may be established anywhere, including outside the European Union or Associated Countries, or international organisations, subject to any restrictions provided in Annex 3 of the Work Program 2026.

Legal entities outside the European Union or Associated Countries are eligible for funding in the following cases:

their participation is deemed essential for carrying out the action, or
they host team members bringing added scientific value to the project or
they are one of the Host Institutions in a Synergy Grant, if they are not excluded from participation or subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex 3 of the Work Program 2026.

The ERC proposal focuses on the applicant and their project. Therefore, the PI must lead the project and their team, demonstrating independence. Collaboration with other researchers from the Host Institution, from outside the Host institution or with other legal entities are welcome, as the ERC recognises that a Principal Investigator may not be able to carry out all aspects of the proposed research alone. Collaborators should develop specific tasks and do not necessarily need to be funded by the project. Including information about collaborators (whose costs are not charged to the project) can still be valuable within the proposal to demonstrate the nature of research, feasibility and potential impact of the research project.

If costs related to these external to the Host Institution collaborations are charged to the project, several options are possible, pending on the involvement of the collaborators:

additional beneficiary(ies)
affiliated entities
other participants involved in the action:
- third parties giving in-kind contribution free of charge
- subcontractors
- service providers ("purchase costs - other goods and services")
- seconded persons against payment (“personnel costs”)
- natural persons working under a direct contract (“personnel costs”)

Their participation needs to be compliant with the provisions of the grant agreement and can be further analysed in the context of each project and modified, if necessary, during granting.

For instance, another legal entity that is responsible for carrying out a substantial portion of the research and whose expenses are covered by the project, typically participates as an additional beneficiary. This arrangement guarantees appropriate acknowledgment of their contribution and adherence to financial regulations. Their project-related costs can be claimed, provided they meet the eligibility criteria.

Collaborations with other entities entailing costs to the project must last as long as required for the best interest of the project, depending on the nature of the tasks developed.

As mentioned in the Information for Applicants, the Principal Investigator will have to declare that they have the written consent of all participants on their involvement and the content of their proposal, as well as of any researcher mentioned in the proposal on their participation in the project (either as team member, collaborator, other Principal Investigator or member of the advisory board). Please note that the ERCEA may request the applicant Principal Investigator at any time during the evaluation, to provide proof of the written consent prior to the call submission deadline. These proofs do not need to be included in the proposal or as an annex.

The Principal Investigator has the flexibility to design their team structure in a way that best supports the project’s needs, including the involvement of non-tenure assistant professors or senior researchers, if this adds value to the research. For the StG, however, such collaborations should not compromise the applicant’s scientific independence.

Budget

Budget Estimation and Eligibility Criteria

Establishing the Estimated Budget
The estimated budget should be based on the best estimates of all eligible costs necessary for the implementation of the project activities. This should consider the Host Institution's usual accounting practices and policies.
Evaluation of the Budget
The budget will be evaluated by independent external experts to ensure that the estimated costs are reasonable and not excessive. This is why, the description of the resources whose costs are budgeted is essential. It is not required to provide documents supporting the budget estimates (e.g., quotes for purchases or subcontracting costs) during the application stage.
Compliance with Eligibility Conditions
All costs must meet the general eligibility conditions outlined in Article 6 – Eligible and Ineligible Costs and Contributions of the Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement. In particular:
Costs must be directly linked to the action as described in proposal.
Costs must be necessary for the implementation of the action.
Costs must be reasonable, justified, and compliant with the principle of sound financial management (focusing on economy and efficiency).

Guidance for Budget Estimation & Information submission

The Principal Investigator should consult with the relevant department(s) at the Host Institution to ensure that all costs are eligible and properly categorized in line with both their usual accounting practices and international accounting standards, while also adhering to Horizon Europe rules.

At application, the principal investigators and Host Institution representatives should consult the Information for applicants for each call to be able to fill in their application and budget in compliance with the Horizon Europe and ERC requirements (Information for applicants for StG and CoG 2026). Further guidance can be obtained consulting the Model Grant Agreement and the Annotated Grant Agreement.

Maximum Budgets and Overheads

Maximum Funding Levels
The maximum budgets for various ERC funding schemes are outlined in the ERC Work Programmes. For example, for an ERC Starting Grant, the standard funding ceiling is €1.5 million (plus any applicable additional funding), including overheads.
Overhead Calculation
Overheads are calculated as a flat rate of 25% of the total eligible direct costs, excluding subcontracting and internal invoiced goods and services. These overheads are included in the maximum funding ceiling.

Currency and Exchange Rates

Currency Use in Budget Preparation
Only Euro integers should be used when preparing the budget table. All figures composing the amount should be written out in full (no percentages or abbreviations).
Exchange Rate Considerations
During the application stage, there is no legal obligation to account for exchange rates when preparing the requested budget amount.
However, during project implementation, beneficiaries with general accounts established in a currency other than the Euro must convert their costs into Euro in compliance with the provisions of the Model Grant agreement, Article 21.3).

Budget Modifications

Fixed Maximum Grant Amount
For actual cost grants, the maximum grant amount established after evaluation (as indicated in the invitation letter to grant preparation) cannot be increased, even in the case of factors like inflation, exchange rate fluctuations or portability (before or after the grant signature).
If the incurred eligible costs during project implementation are lower than the estimated costs, the balance will be calculated at the final payment stage (Annotated Grant Agreement, Article 22.3.4).
Modifying the Budgetary Breakdown
The Principal Investigator may request changes to the budgetary breakdown during project implementation. However, modifications to the budget breakdown for additional funding will only be accepted if the objectives for which the additional funding was awarded remain unchanged.
Forms of personnel costs:

Personnel costs:

The project team is usually employed by the Host Institution:

Employee costs (including those for the Principal Investigator) are eligible as personnel costs if they meet the general eligibility criteria and relate to personnel employed by the beneficiary under an employment contract (or equivalent appointing act) and assigned to the action. (i.e. working for the project according to internal written instructions, organisation chart or other documented management decision). Eligible costs are limited to salaries, social security contributions, taxes, and any other costs directly linked to remuneration, as specified by national law or the terms of the employment contract (or equivalent appointing act).

The salaries of researchers should be paid in accordance with the HI's remuneration policy i.e. within the normal pay scales which consider age, experience etc. However, it is possible that additional payments are made if this is in line with the HI's practice and the requirements for supplementary payments or project-based remuneration. In particular, they should not exceed the remuneration costs paid by the beneficiary for work in similar projects funded by national schemes (‘national projects reference’); they should be defined based on objective criteria allowing to determine the amount to which the person is entitled; and they should reflect the usual practice of the beneficiary to pay consistently bonuses or supplementary payments for work in projects funded by national schemes. 

Other forms of personnel eligible: There are other categories of personnel costs set out in the grant agreement, such as direct contract with natural persons or seconded personnel. To be eligible the costs must fulfil specific eligibility conditions. See Annotated Model Grant agreement – art. 6.2.A.2 and 6.2.A.3.

PI – Teaching buy-outs:

Costs related to substitutes hired by the HI to carry out any of the PI’s duties that are not linked to the ERC grant, such as teaching, are ineligible.

Administrative officer costs:

Normally the costs of administrative personnel are not eligible as a direct cost, unless they are performing support tasks that are necessary for the implementation of the project and are in line with the usual practice of the beneficiary to charge such administrative costs as direct costs (i.e., there is no central administrative service or practice to consider them as an overhead costs). This must be clearly described in the description of the action. Furthermore, beneficiary must be able to demonstrate and document the actual time dedicated by administrative staff on the project.

PI time commitment:

The % of the total contractual working time the PI plans to dedicate to the action during its whole duration, should be clearly indicated in the Resources part. This applies regardless of whether the PI intends to charge their salary costs to the ERC. In both cases - whether the action is based on lump sum or actual costs - the PI's obligation to declare their time commitment to the action remains unchanged. The host institution must make sure that the Principal Investigator ensures a sufficient time commitment and presence throughout the action, to guarantee its proper implementation. This should be done via time sheets/alternative similar tools as per the HI rules in place, irrespective if the PI's salary costs are charged or not to the project. Both time commitments (on the project and in EU/AC) must be reached for the overall action duration (NOT annually or per reporting period).

Open access:

Costs for providing immediate Open Access to publications are eligible if the publishing venue is fully open access (i.e. a fully open access journal, book or publishing platforms) and if they are incurred during the lifetime of the project. This concerns article processing charges, book processing charges and other publishing fees such as page charges or colour charges.

More information can be found on the ERC website: Open Science in ERC Projects | European Research Council

Purchases of Equipment, Infrastructure, and Other Assets

Costs for such assets used for the project must be declared as depreciation costs. These purchases are considered long-term investments; it includes, where applicable, costs related to preparing the asset for its intended use (e.g., site preparation, delivery, handling, installation, etc.). The Resources section should generally list only the equipment charged to the project. If the applicant finds it beneficial to include all equipment used in the project, a clear distinction should be made between the equipment financed by the project and that which is not.

Specific Conditions in addition to the general eligibility ones:

Depreciation Allocation
- The depreciable amount (purchase price) of the equipment must be allocated systematically over its useful life. The useful life is defined as the period during which the equipment is expected to be usable.
- If the equipment’s useful life exceeds one year, the beneficiary cannot charge the full cost in a single year.

Use of Equipment Exclusively for the Action
- If the equipment is not used exclusively for the action, only the portion used for the action may be charged. This usage must be auditable and proportionally documented.
Depreciation Calculation
- Depreciation should be charged in accordance with applicable international accounting standards and the beneficiary’s usual accounting practices. Depreciation can begin at the earliest when the equipment is received and made available for use (i.e., when it is in the required location and condition for its intended operation).

Exception for Specific Equipment

In exceptional cases, an applicant may request to include in the Grant Agreement equipment, infrastructure, or other assets purchased specifically for the action (or developed as part of the action, such as a prototype) as fully capitalized costs if:

They are necessary for the viability of the action, including its financial viability.
They are recorded under the beneficiary’s fixed asset account in compliance with international accounting standards and the beneficiary's usual cost accounting practices.

These assets must be clearly listed and the request for fully capitalised costs must be justified in the proposal.

Eligibility of Low-Value Equipment Costs

The full cost of certain low-value equipment may be eligible for reimbursement when purchased, provided the following conditions are met:

The full cost must be recorded in the entity’s accounts as an expenditure for the year of purchase, in line with the entity's usual accounting practices. It should not be recorded as an asset subject to depreciation.
The cost of the equipment must fall below the low-value ceiling defined by national law (e.g., national tax legislation) or another objective reference that is consistent with the materiality principle.
the equipment must be used exclusively for the action in the year it is purchased.

Unlike equipment, consumables (raw materials, laboratory supplies and other goods that are used up or replaced frequently during the duration of the action etc) are not depreciated but are charged as actual costs at the point of their use for the action.

Costs related to travel (including visa costs, where applicable), fieldwork, experimental work, or for a scientific advisory group can be eligible provided they fulfil the eligibility criteria, which amongst other, should be directly linked to the research performed and necessary for the implementation of the action. These eligibility conditions apply equally to the PI and the members of the research team. These elements must be clearly described in the proposal and will be assessed by the panel based on the proposed activities. 

Team building activities for entertainment and hospitality purposes will generally be deemed ineligible. 

Subcontracting & purchase costs – other goods, works and services

This budget category covers limited externalized action tasks (i.e. contracts for parts of the project described in the proposal) that are carried out by a subcontractor rather than the beneficiary itself (such as developing a specific molecule which will be the basis for the PI’s research and testing). In contrast, if the externalized task are not action tasks, but rather a minor support to research task, such costs may be categorized under purchase costs – other goods, works and services, as long as they necessary for the implementation of the project (such as certificate of financial statements, standard blood samples, standard translation etc.)

When selecting a subcontractor or making purchases and charging the costs to the project, the beneficiary must adhere to specific conditions in addition to the general eligible criteria:

The selection should be based on either the best value for money (considering the quality of the service, goods, or work proposed—i.e., the optimal price-quality ratio) or the lowest price.
The subcontractor or supplier must not have a conflict of interest.
For beneficiaries classified as 'contracting authorities' or 'contracting entities' under the EU Public Procurement Directives (Directives 2014/24, 2014/25, and 2009/81), they must comply with the relevant national public procurement laws. These laws generally outline specific procurement procedures for the types of contracts they cover.

Ethics & Security

Ethics

In the document How to Complete Your Ethics Self-Assessment, you will find detailed information about the elements required at the submission stage. You need to 1) flag the ethics issues of your research in the ethics issue table, and 2) explain how you want to address them in the ethics self-assessment. You will find these sections in part A of your application, and you can add ethics attachments too.

Generally, official authorisations or approvals can be acquired after the project begins but must always be secured before initiating the relevant research activities requiring those. These documents should be submitted to ERCEA only if requested.

For some areas of research, ethics issues might be rare. However, you should avoid ignoring certain issues just because they are considered minor, for instance:

Data exchange with collaborators outside the EU, can be potentially complex depending on the type of data and country, among others. Because of potential different legislations and ethical standards, it is important to mention collaborations with all NON-EU countries.
Standard machine learning is considered as a form of AI, and despite it may entail fewer risks, they should be identified and mitigated.
Some data and/or samples that have been previously collected, may still entail serious ethics risks depending on the collection context (recruitment, consent, secondary use, etc.)
Animal research with certain organisms may be unregulated but you can identify the species in the Ethics Issues Table

Importantly, the responsibility and accountability of your ERC project relies on the principal investigator and the host institution.

You can also find more guidance on how to consider research ethics issues at the proposal stage in a specific ERC class, available on the ERC YouTube channel.

Security self-assessment

The security self-assessment is a table in part A of the online form (section 4) that the PI needs to fill in at the time of the proposal submission. They will have to declare whether the proposed research activity involves information requiring protection against disclosure, whether there exists any kind of potential for misuse of the results and whether the research could be subject to national security restrictions.

Research Integrity

Research Integrity is one of the core principles of the ERC, as stated in the ERC annual work programme.

The ERC Executive Agency (ERCEA) has established since 2014 an administrative procedure to deal efficiently and effectively with incoming information on alleged scientific misconduct and breaches of research integrity concerning applications, evaluation of the proposals and implementation of the grants. This procedure ensures timely follow-up actions and provides a framework for operations in line with the legal basis of the Agency and in close cooperation with the ERC Standing Committee on Conflict of Interests, Scientific Misconduct and Ethical Issues (CoIME).
On average, the ERCEA receives between 60 to 80 notifications of alleged scientific misconduct/breaches of research integrity per year and about 25% of these notifications become cases of scientific misconduct/breach of research integrity.
The ERCEA does not have investigative power. However, thanks to its internal procedure, the ERCEA can assess alleged misconduct and breaches of research integrity as well as non-compliance with the experts’ contract and code of conduct.
Additionally, the ERCEA can request that the host institution of the ERC applicants and grant holders carry out an internal investigation to address scientific misconduct and/or any breach of research integrity occurred during the submission of an ERC proposal or implementation of an ERC grant.
Cases of financial irregularities or potential fraud as well as violations of the data protection provisions can be transmitted to dedicated services of the European Commission (e.g. OLAF, EDES and EDPS).

PROGRAMME

Moderator