GrantWise
HORIZON EUROPE TOPIC · Cluster 5 · Climate, Energy and Mobility

Holistic solutions for CCAM integration in critical scenarios (CCAM Partnership)

HORIZON-CL5-2027-06-D6-04 — the expected outcomes as checkable statements, what evaluators look for in this topic, and the conditions that shape the proposal.

Get the free Part B working draft for this topic ↓

ForthcomingRIA · lump sumDeadline 7 October 2027around EUR 5.5 million per project

GrantWise › Horizon Europe topics › HORIZON-CL5-2027-06-D6-04

TopicHORIZON-CL5-2027-06-D6-04
StatusForthcoming
CallHORIZON-CL5-2027-06 — MOBILITY
DestinationDeveloping multimodal systems and services for climate-neutral, smart, inclusive, and safe mobility (2026-27)
Type of actionResearch and Innovation Actions · lump sum
Opening3 June 2027
Deadline7 October 2027
Budgetaround EUR 5.5 million per project · 1 project expected · EUR 5.5 million in total
TRL at the endTRL 5–6
Part B page limit45 pages (standard application form; check your call)
TemplateWork Programme 2026–2027 application form

Expected outcomes

Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes. The topic says: “Project results are expected to contribute to all the following expected outcomes:”

  1. EO1 Detailed clustered collection of critical use cases and scenarios based on the findings of former or current national and international research projects, as well as the identification of missing aspects.
  2. EO2 In-depth analysis of stakeholders that may be affected by critical situations and edge cases and that have high interest and/or influence in resolving these situations through their capabilities.
  3. EO3 Availability of real-time holistic situation interpretation services addressing the respective needs of road users of all kinds, road operators, service providers and related perspectives, as well as its social participation and technological integration, i.e. the role of each technological component in the overall system-of-systems.
  4. EO4 Availability of a “local deconflicting CCAM architecture” that detects and deconflicts corner case situations (automatically through active and passive technologies or by including remote operation techniques). This includes the capability from online calculation of optimal countermeasures to ensure safety, and reduce any negative impacts on all road users, by considering available infrastructure (including also automated and connected digital components, like sensors, intelligent traffic control systems, cooperative communication), and overall conditions. Such an architecture also needs to address relevant requirements, particularly in technology and near and far communications, outlining the technical standards and investments necessary for risk mitigation. These may include solutions to increase road users’ situational awareness and the provision of reliable, accurate and timely…
  5. EO5 Establishment of working methods and harmonization of interfaces with national/local road authorities, operators and emergency services (e.g. first responders in case of accidents), including remote operations and road enforcement. The aim must be the creation or adaption of decision-support tools that can be integrated with mobility platforms, traffic control systems, and emergency services. This also includes the definition of related shared governance models. Understanding of the requirements for public road authorities (national and local) to address CCAM critical cases, defining their role in supporting and enabling CCAM operations.
  6. EO6 Enhanced user acceptance through holistic CCAM solutions addressing their individual needs and requirements as e.g. road user, customer, operator, service provider, etc., in terms of trust, safety, security, etc.

Expected impacts named in the destination

The wider, long-term effects the destination seeks. Your outcomes feed them; they are not project deliverables.

  1. EI1 Improved mobility for people and goods in all weather conditions, ensuring safe, shared, inclusive, affordable, attractive, and accessible door-to-door mobility, for private and public transport in mixed traffic and confined areas, as well as open roads.
  2. EI2 Seamless integration of CCAM solutions into existing transport ecosystems to ensure interoperability, promote multimodality, enhance traffic safety, catering to diverse user needs and behaviours.
  3. EI3 Resilient, climate-neutral, and sustainable mobility solutions with reduced carbon footprints, resulting in greener, less congested, cost-effective, and demand-responsive transport systems.
  4. EI4 Increased competitiveness of the transport system using secure and hyper-advanced technologies such as real-time perception, situational awareness, and decision-making systems, based on trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (including Edge and Generative AI), satellite navigation, smart traffic management, and tools for software development for CCAM applications.
  5. EI5 Enhanced resilience of transport networks through improved operational efficiency for both passenger and intermodal freight transport, future-proofed mobility systems supporting EU competitiveness while ensuring affordable and accessible transport for all passengers.
  6. EI6 Drastic reduction in road fatalities for all types of users, especially on rural areas.
  7. EI7 Improved resilience of the public transport system via the use of AI.
  8. EI8 Advanced technologies and methods for improved reliability in complex environments for aviation.

What evaluators will look for in this topic

Expected outcomes

  • Projects should contribute to all of the expected outcomes.
  • For each outcome (EO1 to EO6), 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.

  • “According to the case and the dimension of the incident, different entities and actors of the CCAM system (and even beyond, e.g. regulatory bodies and emergency and crisis response centres) are involved and may need to take part to resolve these events in a resilient, safe and secure way.”
  • “Proposed actions are expected to address all of the following aspects:.”
  • “Where applicable, the use of artificial intelligence methods and digital infrastructure support should be considered, aligned also to the tools and approaches for robust decision making done in HORIZON-CL5-2026-10-D6-02.”
  • “The solutions also should reference common EU Emergency Response Protocols, e.g. for first responders.”
  • “Also, the creation of decision-support tools and the integration of those into mobility platforms, traffic control systems, and emergency services must be considered.”
  • “Solutions will need to be targeted against the scenarios identified and the stakeholders affected and would aim to either eliminate the risk to the service resilience or reduce its likelihood and impact as far as reasonably practicable.”
  • “In addition, also the integration of the solutions into existing platforms needs to be validated in relevant environments (TRL 5).”
  • “The outcomes of this call are expected to feed into future CCAM demonstrations.”
  • “This topic requires the effective contribution of SSH disciplines and the involvement of SSH experts, institutions as well as the inclusion of relevant SSH expertise, in order to produce meaningful and significant effects enhancing the societal impact of the related research activities.”
  • “Projects funded under this topic are expected to build on the insights and outcomes of the CCAM Technology Observatory, exploring and leveraging complementarities between their own activities and the Observatory’s findings.”
  • “Projects resulting from this topic are expected to apply the European Common Evaluation Methodology (EU-CEM) for CCAM.”

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.
  • TRL: the topic expects TRL 5–6 by the end of the project. State where you start and the evidence for it.
  • Other Eligible Conditions: “Subject to restrictions for the protection of European communication networks.”

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.
  • The scope expects pilots or demonstration. Name the sites, the partners who run them and what is measured there.
  • Policy or regulation is in scope. Name the policy owners you will reach and what you will give them.
  • Keep outputs, outcomes and impacts apart: what you deliver, what changes when others use it, and the long-term effect.
  • For each destination impact you claim, show which of your outcomes feeds it. 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.
The scope, as published

Based on the preliminary and final findings of HEADSTART, SUNRISE, EVENTS, ROADVIEW and SYNERGIES (among others), this call is focussing on CCAM solutions for critical cases, specifically situations and events that are less regular and of higher risk. These cases may also include emergency conditions and unplanned events, on local and on larger (regional, national, European) scale, such as extreme weather conditions, road incidents, cyberattacks, traffic disruptions, and sudden loss of coverage of the Operational Design Domain (ODD). CCAM operations may be disturbed under multiple scenarios, and can vary according to the type of road, road attributes, traffic conditions, available infrastructure and technology, malfunctions, incidents, etc. Depending on the specific circumstances and the dimension of the disturbance, the impact on CCAM operations and involved agents (e.g. road users, vehicles, VRUs, infrastructure components, emergency services, operators) may vary. According to the case and the dimension of the incident, different entities and actors of the CCAM system (and even beyond, e.g. regulatory bodies and emergency and crisis response centres) are involved and may need to take part to resolve these events in a resilient, safe and secure way. This call adopts a holistic approach, investigating critical cases not only from technological/infrastructure or vehicle-related perspectives (e.g., edge cases for automated vehicles) but also from the viewpoint of the user, customer, service provider, authority, city, etc. In particular, the focus is on how the CCAM system addresses and mitigates potential negative consequences of such events, including safety risks, emissions, loss of trust, and similar impacts. Proposed actions are expected to address all of the following aspects: Development of a clustered list of critical scenarios, impacted entities, role and relation of all stakeholders, the estimated impact and the optimal kind of CCAM-based countermeasure. Development and testing of tools and services for the detection of critical situations and edge cases, also based on the tools and approaches for robust environment perception done in HORIZON-CL5-2026-10-D6-02. Development and testing of CCAM-based countermeasure solutions. Where applicable, the use of artificial intelligence methods and digital infrastructure support should be considered, aligned also to the tools and approaches for robust decision making done in HORIZON-CL5-2026-10-D6-02. The solutions also should reference common EU Emergency Response Protocols, e.g. for first responders. Also, the creation of decision-support tools and the integration of those into mobility platforms, traffic control systems, and emergency services must be considered. In general, customer/user understanding and trust in the CCAM system is crucial in the adoption of a new service. In building trust, it is vital to take into consideration the user perspective and investigate how critical cases can be managed in a way that is effective for the improvement of customer perception. Validation and evaluation of solutions in terms of resulting risk reduction and potential negative impacts of critical cases. Solutions will need to be targeted against the scenarios identified and the stakeholders affected and would aim to either eliminate the risk to the service resilience or reduce its likelihood and impact as far as reasonably practicable. This also includes the quantification of the impact, which may also be deduced by using simulation. In addition, also the integration of the solutions into existing platforms needs to be validated in relevant environments (TRL 5). The outcomes of this call are expected to feed into future CCAM demonstrations. This topic requires the effective contribution of SSH disciplines and the involvement of SSH experts, institutions as well as the inclusion of relevant SSH expertise, in order to produce meaningful and significant effects enhancing the societal impact of the related research activities. Projects funded under this topic are expected to build on the insights and outcomes of the CCAM Technology Observatory, exploring and leveraging complementarities between their own activities and the Observatory’s findings. This topic implements the co-programmed European Partnership on ‘Connected, Cooperative and Automated Mobility’ (CCAM). As such, projects resulting from this topic will be expected to report on results to the European Partnership ‘Connected, Cooperative and Automated Mobility’ (CCAM) in support of the monitoring of its KPIs. Projects resulting from this topic are expected to apply the European Common Evaluation Methodology (EU-CEM) for CCAM.

Technology readiness, as published

Activities are expected to achieve TRL 5-6 by the end of the project – see General Annex B. https://www.headstart-project.eu/ https://ccam-sunrise-project.eu/ https://www.events-project.eu/ https://roadview-project.eu/ https://synergies-ccam.eu/ See the evaluation methodology here.

Other topics in HORIZON-CL5-2027-06

Source and attribution

Topic text from the official topic page on the EU Funding & Tenders Portal, retrieved 19 October 2026. © European Union, reused under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (CC BY 4.0). Changes: the expected outcomes and impacts are split into numbered statements, long passages are shortened, and the evaluator checklist is GrantWise's own commentary. Your call and the Work Programme always win; check them before you submit. GrantWise is independent and not affiliated with, endorsed by, or acting on behalf of the European Commission.