Open topic on reinvigorating and shielding European democracy

Expected outcomes

• Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes.
• For each outcome (EO1 to EO2), name who will use or adopt your results (a specific group, not “industry” or “society”), how they get them, and the indicator that shows the change, with baseline, target and date.
• Use the topic's own words for each outcome, so the evaluator can tick it off.

What the scope asks for

Evaluators check the proposal against these sentences of the scope. Answer each one visibly, in the call's own words.

• “Under this open topic, proposals should address existing, upcoming or unforeseen challenges and/or creative or disruptive solutions for protecting European democracy, enhancing citizens’ trust and political participation, expanding inclusiveness and fairness of democratic institutions and practices and supporting and protecting civil society.”
• “Proposals are encouraged to investigate the opportunities offered by digital and other new technological solutions, notably from the civic tech sector.”
• “Proposals should address unmet research needs, complementing previous Horizon Europe calls.”
• “In that sense, proposals should consider, build on – if appropriate – while not duplicating, previous research, including but not limited to, SSH disciplines and/or research by other Horizon Europe projects, in particular in the context of this destination.”
• “Coordination among the successful proposals from this topic should be envisaged to avoid duplication and to exploit complementarities as well as opportunities for increased impact.”
• “Given the multifaceted character of the challenges confronted by democracies, applicants should ensure effective interdisciplinary collaborations by building consortia with the participation of all relevant disciplines, depending of course on the nature of the selected democratic challenge and research angle.”
• “Applicants are encouraged to adopt innovative approaches, including also by considering alternative and complementary models for democratic participation and engagement, facilitating the development and potential uptake of solutions.”
• “To ensure the active involvement of and timely feedback from relevant democracy practitioners and policymakers, proposals should plan a mid-term deliverable consisting in the assessment of the project’s mid-term contributions to the expected outcomes, performed by the democracy practitioners and policymakers.”
• “Proposals should directly engage citizens, as well as civil society organisations, to enable broader public debate and explore uptake of democratic innovations and better anticipate potential risks.”
• “Proposals are encouraged to collaborate with the JRC Competence Centre on Participatory and Deliberative Democracy, particularly with respect to demonstrating how structured opportunities for citizen participation strengthen inclusiveness and fairness of democratic institutions and practices, and foster evolution in democratic public spaces.”
• “Where applicable, proposals should leverage the data and services available through European Research Infrastructures federated under the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), as well as data from relevant Data Spaces.”
• “Particular efforts should be made to ensure that the data produced in the context of this topic is FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable). https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/e6cd4328-673c-4e7a-8683-f63ffb2cf648_en?filename=Political%20Guidelines%202024-2029_EN.pdf. https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/2539eb53-9485-4199-bfdc-97166893ff45_en?filename=JUST_template_comingsoon_standard_1.pdf.…”

Conditions that shape the proposal

• Part B, sections 1–3: 45 pages (standard application form). Text beyond the limit is not read; tables and figures count.
• Lump sum: the budget is fixed per work package and paid when each work package is completed. Every work package needs activities and deliverables an evaluator can verify, and the effort must match the money.
• Two-stage submission: the first stage uses a shorter proposal and is assessed on Excellence and Impact only. Check the page limit and sections in the stage-one form of your call.
• Admissibility Conditions: Proposal page limit and layout: “Applicants submitting a proposal for a blind evaluation (see General Annex F) must not disclose their organisation names, acronyms, logos nor names of personnel in the proposal abstract and Part B of their first-stage application (see General Annex E).”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “The Joint Research Centre (JRC) may participate as member of the consortium selected for funding as a beneficiary with zero funding, or as an associated partner. The JRC will not participate in the preparation and submission of the proposal - see General Annex B.”
• Other Eligible Conditions: “In order to achieve the expected outcomes, consortia must include, as beneficiaries or affiliated entities, (i) at least one relevant public body with a policy-making role; and (ii) at least one relevant civil society organisation.”
• Evaluation and award: Award criteria, scoring and thresholds: “The first-stage proposals of this topic will be evaluated blindly.”

Impact pathway and traps

• The topic asks for social sciences and humanities (SSH) expertise. Evaluators look for SSH partners with a real role in the methodology, not a token task.
• Users or citizens are part of the scope. Show how they take part in the design and testing, not only that they are informed.
• The scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
• The Joint Research Centre may take part. Decide whether its involvement helps, and say so if you include it.
• Open science or data practices are named. Make the data management plan concrete: which data, which repository, when.
• The gender dimension is named in the topic. Show how sex and gender analysis enters the research content, not only team balance.
• Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
• Link your outcomes to the destination's expected impacts in the Work Programme. Destination impacts are long-term effects, not project deliverables.
• Name the barriers outside the project (regulation, markets, user behaviour) that could block uptake, and what you will do if they do.
• Section 2.3 (the summary canvas) is optional on this call; the old split into scientific, economic and societal impact is no longer required.