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.

A COFUND project can be designed in many different ways and it is up to the beneficiary to decide how the researchers are funded. If the beneficiary wants to include a family allowance after the recruitment, it is OK, but it is not a formal requirement from the EC/ REA. It can of course be evaluated positively by the evaluators as clear support to offer the best conditions to the fellows. In addition, this would be unlikely, as in H2020 the MSCA rules did not foresee changes in the eligibility for family allowance during the fellowship duration.

“Partner Organisations” means both type of partners: associated or implementing.

Implementing partners have a bigger role, however, this was harmonised among the MSCA actions and associated partners are supposed to appear in part A for all actions. COFUND is the only action which has implementing partners and therefore it is slightly different.

This is up to the experts to assess; all networks are highly encouraged to follow what is explained in FAQ n 16721.

One single IERO/IO (all branches included) cannot receive more than 40% of the total EC contribution. The country where the IERO is based won’t be counting towards the 40% rule, but it is the IERO itself which is counting (as if the IERO was considered as a separate country, but using the country correction coefficients of their hosts). Example: In a project, if there are European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) German and French branches, the budget requested by both branches will count towards the 40% rule for EMBL’s share, while this specific budget will not count for France’s or Germany’s share of the budget.

The university must be included (either as an associated partner or associated partner linked to a beneficiary) and they must provide a Letter of Commitment even if they only award the degree and have no other task.

No, it is not.

Yes, it is possible as long as it is well described in the proposal. It will be assessed accordingly by the experts during the evaluations. However, this set-up should not be used to circumvent some other rules, like the 40% rule.

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.

Yes. Such an additional contract in the US can be for example to ensure equivalent benefits and social security coverage. Below is an example provided by the European Commission:

Example: A BE university recruits the fellow for the total duration of the action (i.e. provides the main employment contract under the action) and sends him/her to a US university. Continuing the Belgian social security during the stay in the US could be too expensive, so that the beneficiary asks the US partner organisation to conclude an additional employment contract, in order to insure the researcher in the US.

Yes, there has to be a transfer of money from the institution of the return phase to the partner hosting the outgoing phase. Partnership agreement should be signed and should define such a transfer. Country correction coefficient (CCC) of the partner hosting the outgoing phase will be applied. The transfer can include not only living allowance but also mobility and family contribution or transfer of institutional contribution.

No. The researcher should be recruited by the institution of the return phase (the European beneficiary) under an employment contract that covers the entire duration of the grant agreement, including the outgoing phase (36 months total). It is then possible for the partner hosting the outgoing phase (the Third country organisation) to sign an additional employment contract with the researcher for just those 24 months of the outgoing phase, but the main contract will be with the beneficiary in Europe. In the practice different scenarios can occur, e.g. for the time of the outgoing phase (i.e. 24 months) the institution of the return phase will provide unpaid leave to the researcher – i.e. the researcher remains employee of the institution of the return phase but receives no salary from this institution.

It may be possible if the challenges are insurmountable.

Firstly, the fellow and the beneficiary should of course try to solve the issues and also document the process.

But if that fails, they should contact their Project Officer. Best practice would be to already be able to suggest an alternative that would ensure that the project could be implemented according to/or as close as possible to what has been evaluated.

The return phase always lasts 12 months, there are no exceptions. Starting at the European institution counts as outgoing. This means that if the outgoing phase is 24 months, only 21 months will be left after the secondment at the European return host.

This is mainly for statistics purposes.

‘Associated partners’ are entities which participate in the action, but do not sign the grant agreement, without the right to charge costs or claim contributions. They contribute to the implementation of the action, for instance hosting secondments.

Linked third parties can be added as Associated partners linked to a Beneficiary. The type of link and involvement and activities of such entities must be clearly described in the proposal, Part B, and it will be assessed as part of the evaluation.

In the current text of the Work Programme no letter of commitment is required for Associated partners linked to a beneficiary.

There are 3 possible links: [Same group] if the legal entity is under the same direct or indirect control as another legal entity; [Controls] if a legal entity directly or indirectly controls another legal entity; or [Is controlled by] if a legal entity is directly or indirectly controlled by another legal entity.