Taking the Work programme (WP) wording as reference: “Implementing partners means third parties receiving financial support from the beneficiary and implementing the MSCA COFUND Doctoral or Postdoctoral programmes” (p.75 of the Horizon Europe MSCA Work Programme). An implementing partner that employs researchers but does not get funding would not strictly fall within the WP definition of implementing partners.

However, if a partner plays an important role in the implementation of the project but does not receive financial support from the beneficiary, the situation will be assessed by the evaluators at the proposal stage. In this case, the partner could still be considered implementing partner and still, partners recruiting researchers and playing a major role in the implementation of the project would need to comply with the specific eligibility conditions (e.g., country eligible for funding). The corresponding EU contribution (researcher-months) should be properly used by the beneficiary in some cost of the project though.

Yes, of course. The letter of commitment must state if Associated Partners contribute financially and how much is this contribution; however Associated partners cannot recruit researchers or receive EU funding, they can only host/ train researchers.

Implementing partners can also contribute financially even though they will receive financial support via the beneficiary.

Yes, as indicated in the GfA (page 9) https://rea.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-10/MSCA%20COFUND%202021%20-%20Guide%20for%20Applicants.docx.pdf: Associated partners known at the proposal stage must be included under the participants section in the part A of the proposal as well as in the relevant section in the part B2 (section 5).

The applicant shall only fill out this section if relevant, otherwise it can be left blank. There is already a table to be completed for the partners (Implementing or Associated) in part B2.

Both implementing partners and associated partners can provide co-financing. The money for the implementing partners can come from the coordinator, whereas the money for the associated partners has to come from a different source as they can’t receive EU money.

The JRC, as the Research Centre of the European Commission, is considered academic. The JRC can participate in a Doctoral Networks consortium but not as a beneficiary. They can only participate as an Associated Partner – they can be involved in the training and can host doctoral candidates on secondment but cannot recruit them directly or receive direct funding from the Commission.

All MSCA projects have to advertise their job offers on the EURAXESS website at a minimum. On top of that, they can also be advertised by the specific universities: https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs

Currently, Switzerland has the status of a third country not associated to Horizon Europe in the frame of the DN and PF calls.

For PF: As long as this status remains unchanged, researchers with a Swiss host institution are not eligible to apply to the MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships. Switzerland is eligible as host country for the outgoing phase of a Global Fellowship. However, Swiss nationals are NOT eligible for participation in MSCA Global Fellowships unless they are long-term residents of an EU Member State or a country associated to Horizon Europe.

For DN: Organisations based in Switzerland can participate in MSCA Doctoral Networks as ‘Associated Partners’. The Swiss project partner will not be funded by the European Commission but by the State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation.

More info can be found at https://www.euresearch.ch/en/horizon-europe/excellent-science/marie-skodowska-curie-actions-(msca)-55.html

UK is to be considered as an Associated Country to Horizon Europe in the frame of PF and DN calls.

For PF: a fellow who plans to be hosted by an institution located in the UK must apply for a European PF.

For DN: partners located in UK can be beneficiaries and the doctoral candidate(s) recruited by UK partners are taken into account in the count of person-months funded by the EC (max. 360 or 540 person-months depending on the DN mode).

If the HE Association Agreement between UK and EC is not signed by the signature of the PF 2022/ DN 2022 Grant Agreements, successful UK applicants will receive funding from UKRI. Currently, the UK government guarantee only covers those eligible calls where the grant agreement needs to be signed by 31 December 2022.

More info can be found at https://www.ukri.org/apply-for-funding/horizon-europe/

Researchers must be enrolled in a doctoral programme leading to the award of a doctoral degree in at least one EU Member State or Horizon Europe Associated Country, and for Joint Doctorates in at least two. If they want to enrol them in a PhD programme in a TC, it should be in addition to the one in a MS/ AC.

Timesheets and declarations are not requested in MSCA projects (contrary to other Horizon Europe actions based on actual costs). To prove that the researcher worked on their MSCA project, it is sufficient to present a contract with the host institution together with additional documents proving the fellow’s dedication to the project, if needed.

Moreover, declarations are not allowed by the auditors. REA has confirmed that the declaration on exclusive work is not applicable for audits carried out in MSCA ITN, IF and COFUND actions to determine time spent working on the action. It is expected this will continue in Horizon Europe.

As outlined in the H2020 Indicative Audit Programme, such evidence may include lab books, attendance lists, conference abstracts, library records, travel expenses, timesheets, reports to supervisor, meeting minutes, e-mail exchanges, etc. and other open sources (e.g. the internet) to see if the researcher worked on activities other than their  project. The auditors will also look at the researcher’s employment contract or corresponding agreement to see if it complies with Article 32 of the H2020 Annotated Model Grant Agreement, including but not limited to the obligation that the researcher works exclusively for the action.

Fellows need documentation in the form of a contract that shows the 50% commitment or something similar since MSCA does not typically operate with timesheets.

When talking about impact, this is prospective, it is in the future, assuming that the project is successful and that it achieves everything that it set up to achieve. The applicants could base themselves on some other studies to strengthen or build their case about the impact they could have, before the impact is actually achieved.

There are different scientific panels and proposals are ranked within their scientific panel. Proposals in some panels are more STEM-oriented and would have a different kind of impact than proposals in the SOC panel for instance, but these proposals would not compete against the STEM-oriented proposals. It should also be considered that the impact is now broadened to encompass not only a purely scientific impact but also impact on the society at large. This can be an area where the SSH proposals could actually have a competitive advantage.

The first thing to note is, that even though they cannot directly claim costs, it does not mean that they cannot indirectly receive some funding for the role they have in the DN. Typically for each unit cost, there is one part that goes to the researcher and then there is the institutional part, and this part should not be seen as funding for just this particular fellow, and this beneficiary. It is rather a common pot for the whole consortium to run the project. In the consortium agreement the consortium defines how this is split. This funding can be distributed to the different partners according to their needs in the project: some partners provide more trainings, for instance, the coordinator typically has more management costs, so this funding can be redistributed, and some of this money can go to associated partners to cover the costs of them hosting researchers for secondments, or for them to provide trainings. So these are internal arrangements within the consortium (in the broader sense with the associated partners) so they can get indirectly money for their action. Of course, there are also non-financial incentives; the interest for them to participate could be transfer of knowledge or being part of a dynamic network and being associated to the research project.

For PF, direct financial benefits may not be there but there are plenty indirect benefits – scientific contributions, networking, getting experience in this type of projects, hosting events.

A 50-50 time commitment is not possible in PF – at least 70% of the time must be spent in the main host institution (beneficiary), and only up to 30% in any other (partner organisation for the secondment).

They can present an official document issued by the government that shows all the contracts a person has had during a period of time. Without an official document, maybe a bank certificate or statement could work.

Having part-time contracts and participating in researcher projects does not look like a complete parental leave as the researcher was somewhat active in research during this period.

The time researchers want deducted for parental leave is the official time they have taken for parental leave and it needs to be documented, with a certificate from the employer indicating this, together with Social Security documentation.

Taxation does not depend on MSCA rules but on national legislation and also on agreements between different countries.

The applicant could ask the EURAXESS centres of related countries for help.

The fellow should also enquire if there is some sort of double taxation system between the countries that prevent or obliges them to pay taxes during the outgoing phase.  

The first thing to note is, that even though they cannot directly claim costs, it does not mean that they cannot indirectly receive some funding for the role they have in the DN. Typically for each unit cost, there is one part that goes to the researcher and then there is the institutional part, and this part should not be seen as funding for just this particular fellow, and this beneficiary. It is rather a common pot for the whole consortium to run the project. In the consortium agreement the consortium defines how this is split. This funding can be distributed to the different partners according to their needs in the project: some partners provide more trainings, for instance, the coordinator typically has more management costs, so this funding can be redistributed, and some of this money can go to associated partners to cover the costs of them hosting researchers for secondments, or for them to provide trainings. So these are internal arrangements within the consortium (in the broader sense with the associated partners) so they can get indirectly money for their action. Of course, there are also non-financial incentives; the interest for them to participate could be transfer of knowledge or being part of a dynamic network and being associated to the research project.

For PF, direct financial benefits may not be there but there are plenty indirect benefits – scientific contributions, networking, getting experience in this type of projects, hosting events.

All Open Science aspects are moved under Excellence in the methodology. Open Access should not be described under Impact and Dissemination as it is assessed under Excellence.

This requirement should be applicable to beneficiaries and not to associated partners.

For calls with deadlines in 2022 and beyond, once a project proposal is selected for funding following evaluations, consortium partners concerned by the eligibility criterion will have until Grant Agreement signature to confirm they have a GEP in place.

For calls with deadlines in 2022 and beyond, once a project proposal is selected for funding following evaluations, consortium partners concerned by the eligibility criterion will have until Grant Agreement signature to confirm they have a GEP in place.