Official sources: ERC Work Programme 2027 (C(2026) 4907 of 20 July 2026) — ERC Rules of Submission and Evaluation — Information for Applicants StG/CoG 2027 (version 11.0, 22.07.2026).

Principal Investigator (StG-specific)

• Eligibility window: first PhD (or equivalent doctoral degree) successfully defended more than 0 and up to 10 years before 1 January 2027 (the "PhD reference date"): defence from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2026 inclusive. The PhD must be held at the call deadline of 14 October 2026 (a defence on 15 October 2026 is not eligible). If the PI holds several PhDs, the first one counts; for holders of a medical degree, see Annex 4.3 of the Information for Applicants.
• PhD certificate is MANDATORY annex (only StG and CoG, not AdG). A scan of the original + translation if needed. The PhD-awarding institution may use the official ERC template to confirm the defense date.
• Track record: up to ten research outputs (publications, preprints, datasets, software, patents, etc.) in the CV and Track Record. A competitive StG PI should already show evidence of the potential for research independence, for example at least one important publication as main author or without the participation of their PhD supervisor.
• Nationality / Age: No restriction.
• Working time commitment: ≥50% of working time on the ERC project + ≥50% of working time in an EU MS or Associated Country during the grant.
• Host Institution: single legal entity in EU MS or Associated Country.

Eligibility window extensions

The 10-year window can be extended in documented cases, for circumstances that occurred after the PhD defence and before the call deadline (unless otherwise specified). Per the Information for Applicants 2027 (Annex 4.4):

• Maternity leave: 18 months per child (or actual length if longer, with justification).
• Paternity / parental leave: actual length taken.
• Long-term illness (more than 90 days, of the PI or a close family member): documented leave actually taken.
• Military / civilian service: actual length.
• Disability: reduced working time (including leave) and/or degree of disability.
• Clinical training: documented duration, up to a maximum of 4 years.
• Gender-based violence or any other form of violence: documented inability to work (minimum 90 days).
• Major disasters (geological, meteorological or human-caused, e.g. armed conflicts): documented inability to work (minimum 90 days).
• Seeking asylum: from the asylum application to the decision on refugee status or the residence permit.

Extensions are requested in Part A Section 5 (Other questions) and documented in one single PDF uploaded as "Annex 1 - Extension Request": a cover page (official template) giving the duration and calculation of the extension, followed by the supporting documents.

Resubmission restrictions

• Not eligible for STG, COG, ADG, Plus and SYG 2027: PIs scored B or C at Step 1 of a 2026 Starting or Consolidator Grant call, PIs scored C at Step 1 of a 2025 Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant call, and PIs whose 2025 or 2026 proposal was rejected for a breach of research integrity.
• No restriction after an A or B at Step 2 or an A not invited at Step 1 of a 2026 Starting or Consolidator Grant call. Inadmissible, ineligible or withdrawn proposals do not count.
• A PI who has held an ERC Starting Grant cannot apply to the 2027 Starting Grant call.
• PI cannot hold more than one active ERC StG/CoG/AdG/SyG/Plus simultaneously. A PI of an ongoing ERC main grant may apply only if that project ends less than two years after the call deadline.
• Only one proposal to an ERC main grant call under evaluation at a time, and only one eligible proposal to the 2027 main grant calls (only the first eligible one is evaluated).
• Not eligible: applicants preparing a grant agreement under the 2025 or 2026 Work Programme, and researchers serving as Panel Members for a 2027 call or who served for a 2025 call (for the same type of grant).

Submission

Single submission deadline. Proposals submitted via the EU Funding & Tenders Portal Submission System (electronic).

Evaluation — 2-step peer review on the SAME submission (no resubmission between steps)

Scoring scale (Step 2 individual reviews)

• Research Project — numerical mark (integers or halves), full range encouraged.
• Principal Investigator — qualitative: Exceptional / Excellent / Very Good / Good / Non-competitive.
• Remote Referees — 3-option recommendation: highly recommended / recommended / not recommended.

Post-award

Grant agreement preparation starts immediately after Step 2 results. Project start: 1–6 months after approval (longer if ethical clarifications needed; up to 12 months exceptionally).

Official sources: Information for Applicants to the Starting and Consolidator Grant 2027 Calls (version 11.0, 22.07.2026), section 1.3, and the Guide for ERC Peer Reviewers applicable to Starting and Consolidator grant calls (check the F&T portal for the version applicable to the 2027 calls).

Sole evaluation criterion: Scientific Excellence

Applied to the proposal as a whole, examining two dimensions:

1. The Research Project — ground-breaking nature, ambition, feasibility of the scientific approach, methodology robustness, work plan coherence, resources justification.
2. The Principal Investigator — intellectual capacity, creativity, scientific expertise and capacity to successfully execute the project, track record commensurate with stage of career.

The detailed sub-elements are described in the applicable ERC Work Programme (Section 1.6) and operationalised in the Guide for Peer Reviewers (Annex 1 evaluation questions).

Evaluation questions (2027)

• Research Project, Step 1: To what extent does the research address important scientific questions? To what extent are the project's objectives ambitious, will the project advance the frontier of knowledge and is the proposed approach scientifically convincing?
• Research Project, Step 2: the two Step 1 questions, plus: To what extent are the research methodology and working arrangements appropriate to achieve the goals of the project? To what extent are the timescales and resources adequate and properly justified?
• Principal Investigator, Step 1 and Step 2: To what extent has the PI demonstrated the ability to conduct groundbreaking research? To what extent does the PI provide evidence of creative and original thinking? To what extent does the PI have the required scientific expertise and capacity to successfully execute the project?

Step 1: review of Part B1 (Part I of the Scientific Proposal + CV and Track Record)

• Each proposal reviewed by ≥3 Panel Members (individual remote reviews) followed by panel meeting.
• Panel members act as generalists; the panel may request additional reviews from members of other panels or remote Step 1 experts. A panel may decide not to discuss proposals with low scores in all individual reviews.
• Outcomes: A invited (passed to Step 2, up to 44 proposals per panel), A not invited (excellent but not ranked high enough), B (high quality but not sufficient), C (not of sufficient quality).
• A not invited: evaluation report with final panel score, ranking range, panel comment and individual comments. B or C (StG): Evaluation Report with a standardised panel comment and individual comments. A invited: no Step 1 report, invitation to the Step 2 interview.
• Indicative Step 1 result date: 11 May 2027 (panel meetings in February 2027).

Step 2 — Panel + external Remote Referees on Part B1 + Part B2

• Same panel + external Remote Referees with deep field expertise (3-option recommendation: highly recommended / recommended / not recommended).
• Panel Members + Remote Referees review the FULL proposal including budget and Funding ID.
• Budget analysis at Step 2: panel may recommend grant reduction if items not fully justified (case-by-case, never across-the-board).
• Every applicant retained for Step 2 is interviewed (about 30 minutes): a presentation of the research project by the PI, then questions and answers, including on the budget table and resources. The PI is interviewed remotely while the panel members sit in the ERC premises; each panel sets the format (slides, timing) and communicates it after Step 1.
• Final outcomes: A (fully meets the excellence criterion, recommended for funding; funded in priority order based on rank if sufficient funds are available) or B (meets some but not all elements, not funded).
• Indicative final result date: 24 August 2027 (panel meetings in June 2027).
• Ranking consolidation across panels uses the normalised accumulated budget (NAB) method to ensure consistency.

Scoring scale (individual)

• Research Project: numerical mark, integers or halves. Full range of marks recommended.
• Principal Investigator: 5-option qualitative: Exceptional / Excellent / Very Good / Good / Non-competitive.
• Remote Referees only: 3-option recommendation as above.
• Applicants receive the final panel score (Step 1: A not invited / B / C; Step 2: A / B), the ranking range of their proposal, the panel comment and the individual reviewers' comments.

Funding model: Actual costs (NOT lump-sum). Indirect costs flat-rate 25%.

Maximum grant: EUR 1 500 000 for 5 years. Additional funding above ceiling: up to EUR 1 000 000 for applicants already based in an EU Member State or Associated Country, or up to EUR 2 000 000 for researchers based outside the EU or Associated Countries at the call deadline. It covers further eligible costs for any cost category when these are necessary to carry out the proposed work, must be fully justified in the Resources section, and is not reduced pro rata for shorter projects.

Pre-financing: typically ~50% at grant start.

Audit certificates: required if cumulative EU contribution to a beneficiary ≥ EUR 430 000.

Ineligible costs (examples — non-exhaustive)

Source: StG/CoG Information for Applicants 2026 (the 2027 version 11.0 no longer lists examples and refers to the Model Grant Agreement used for ERC actions for eligible and ineligible costs). Contact: ERC-2027-STG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu.

• VAT when deductible
• Depreciation of equipment beyond the project duration
• Office supplies (desks, chairs, etc.)
• Teaching buyouts
• Moving costs for family members / furniture / storage
• Retreat costs (teambuilding)
• Academic fees (PhD fees) when not part of the student salary contract

The PI may include a team (postdocs, PhD students, technicians, senior collaborators) — these are NOT formal co-applicants. Team members are normally hosted by the Host Institution; where they bring scientific added value, they may also be hosted by additional legal entities (established anywhere, including outside the EU or Associated Countries, subject to Annex 3 of the ERC Work Programme 2027), which then take part as additional beneficiaries.

For multi-PI collaborative frontier projects, see the ERC Synergy Grant (2-4 PIs, up to 4 distinct host institutions). For collaboration on existing ERC results' commercialisation, see ERC Proof of Concept.

No imposed project backbone. The PI defines the research methodology, work plan, risk assessment and mitigating measures freely in Part II of the Scientific Proposal (Part B2).

Mandatory PI working time commitments (verified in Part A & Host Institution Commitment Letter):

• Starting Grant: ≥50% of working time on the project + ≥50% of working time in an EU MS or Associated Country.

Comparison: CoG ≥40%/≥50%, AdG ≥30%/≥50%, SyG ≥30%/≥50% per PI.

ERC follows the standard Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement (MGA) provisions on IPR:

• Ownership: Each beneficiary owns the results it generates. For ERC = the Host Institution owns the results, while granting the PI rights as the scientific lead.
• Access rights: Other beneficiaries (rare for ERC; mostly a single beneficiary scheme) and the EU have access rights for implementation, exploitation, and dissemination.
• Exploitation obligation: Beneficiaries must use results or take measures to ensure their use (commercially or otherwise).
• Patents: Standard EU rules on protection of background and foreground IP apply. Strong recommendation to file patents before disclosing in publications when commercial exploitation is intended.
• Open access (see Open Science section) does not exempt from IP protection — embargo periods on data are allowed if justified.

Ethics review is independent from the scientific evaluation: it applies to every project funded or placed on a reserve list, and no grant agreement is signed before it concludes satisfactorily.

• Ethics Issues Table (Part A Section 4): 9 categories (hESC/embryos; Humans; Human cells/tissues; Personal data; Animals; Non-EU countries; Environment/health/safety; AI; Other) — each Yes/No.
• Ethics Self-Assessment (mandatory if any Yes): 2 free-text fields ≤5000 chars each, addressing (1) ethical dimension of objectives/methodology/impact and (2) compliance with ethical principles and legislations.
• Excluded research activities (Article 4 of Horizon Europe Regulation): human cloning for reproductive purposes, modification of human genetic heritage, creation of embryos solely for research.
• Civil applications only — military focus excluded. Dual-use activities require justification per Regulation 428/2009.
• Personal data processed in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (EU institutions) and GDPR for beneficiaries.
• Confidentiality: all submission, evaluation, and review materials are confidential. Peer reviewers sign a Conflict of Interest and confidentiality undertaking before accessing proposals.

Mandatory commitments:

• Open access to publications (Plan S compliant): all peer-reviewed publications resulting from the project must be deposited in a trusted repository with open access upon publication, ideally with a CC BY license or equivalent.
• Research data management: Data Management Plan (DMP) is a project deliverable due by Month 6. Data must follow FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) where applicable. Justified opt-out is allowed (e.g. for confidentiality, IP, ethical concerns).
• Software/code: open-source preferred where feasible.
• No additional Open Science criterion within evaluation — but failure to comply post-award triggers grant management consequences.

Multi-actor approach: NOT required. ERC is a single-PI scheme; the team is the PI's research group. Non-academic stakeholders may be involved as collaborators if scientifically justified.

Interdisciplinarity: NOT required but welcomed. Proposals that cross panel boundaries should use a Secondary Panel and justify the cross-disciplinary nature (max 1000 chars in Cover Page). Panel Members will explicitly assess whether the proposal's scope is genuinely interdisciplinary.

Transdisciplinarity: NOT required.

SSH integration: NOT required (PE/LS panels) unless the proposal itself is SSH (SH1-SH8 panels).

• Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement (MGA) — version applicable to ERC actions. Available on the F&T Portal Reference Documents.
• Host Institution Commitment Letter (mandatory, uploaded with submission) — confirms the HI's commitment to sign a Supplementary Agreement with the PI guaranteeing scientific independence, administrative support, working conditions per the European Charter for Researchers, and portability.
• Supplementary Agreement (HI ↔ PI) — signed before Grant Agreement signature. Specifies internal arrangements (budget management, publication authority, team supervision, leave, insurance).
• Ethics Self-Assessment (free text in the Ethics section of the online form, Part A) if ethics issues are flagged, with any available supporting documents (ethics committee opinions, authorisations, consent forms) uploaded as separate PDF annexes.
• Eligibility Extension documents (birth/paternity certificates etc.) — StG/CoG only.
• PhD certificate — MANDATORY for StG (and CoG). Scan of original + translation if needed. PhD-awarding institution may use the official ERC template.

• Periodic reporting: Scientific report + Financial report typically at Month 30 and Month 60 (project end).
• Project officer (PO): ERCEA assigns a Scientific Project Officer for grant monitoring. Site visits possible.
• Mid-term review: not systematic for ERC (unlike some Pillar 2 calls).
• Final report: within 60 days of project end, including a summary suitable for public dissemination (open access).
• Ex-post evaluation: ERCEA may commission impact studies on completed grants 3–5 years after project end.
• Amendments: requested via F&T Portal — duration extension up to 12 months possible if scientifically justified; budget shifts within categories typically allowed.
• Portability: the grant may be transferred to a new Host Institution if requested by the PI and provided the objectives remain achievable (Article 41 MGA).

• Can the PI work part-time? Yes, provided the working time commitment thresholds (StG ≥50% on project, ≥50% in EU/AC) are met.
• Can a non-EU national apply? Yes — nationality is not a criterion. The Host Institution must be in an EU MS or Associated Country.
• Can a previously rejected proposal be resubmitted? It depends on the score and on the step at which it was received: see Resubmission restrictions in Eligibility. For the 2027 calls, a B or C at Step 1 of a 2026 Starting or Consolidator Grant call, or a C at Step 1 of a 2025 Starting, Consolidator or Advanced Grant call, makes the PI ineligible for STG, COG, ADG, Plus and SYG 2027. An A or B at Step 2, or an A not invited at Step 1, of a 2026 Starting or Consolidator Grant call carries no restriction.
• Can I apply with the same proposal in parallel to another EU call? Within the ERC, a PI may have only one proposal to an ERC main grant call under evaluation at any given time, and if a researcher applies to more than one main ERC frontier research grant call of the same Work Programme, only the first eligible proposal is evaluated. Part A (General Information) also asks whether this proposal, or a very similar one, has been submitted in the past 2 years to a call under any EU programme.
• Is the abstract confidential? No — the 2000-character abstract is used in evaluation communications and may be shared with potential reviewers/national agencies. Do not include confidential information.
• What happens if I score A not invited? A not invited is a Step 1 score: your proposal is of excellent quality but not ranked sufficiently high to pass to Step 2 (up to 44 proposals per panel are retained). You receive an evaluation report with the final panel score, the ranking range, the panel comment and the individual reviews. In Part A you may consent to the disclosure of your evaluation results to national or regional public funders that run schemes for ERC applicants who scored highly.

Part B = Research Proposal (Part B1 + Part B2)

Part B1: Cover Page + Part I of the Scientific Proposal (max 5 pages) + CV and Track Record (max 4 pages), evaluated at Step 1 and Step 2

• Cover Page (1 page): PI name + Host Institution + duration + abstract (max 2000 characters) + cross-panel/cross-domain justification if Secondary Panel used (max 1000 characters).
• Part I of the Scientific Proposal (max 5 pages, excluding cover page and references): (1) the current state of knowledge, (2) the scientific question and the objectives of the project, (3) the overall approach or research strategy to reach the project goals. It must convince the panel that the idea is original and creative, addresses an important question, and will advance the frontier of knowledge. It is the basis of the Step 1 decision, so it must contain all essential information.
• CV and Track Record (max 4 pages): Personal details + names of PhD supervisor(s) and postdoctoral mentor(s) + Researcher unique identifiers (ORCID, etc.) + Education + Current and previous positions + Research achievements (up to 10 outputs: publications, preprints, books, data sets, software, patents, start-ups) + Peer recognition (prizes, awards, fellowships, invited talks) + Additional information (career breaks, diverse paths, other contributions to the research community).

Part B2: Part II of the Scientific Proposal (max 7 pages) + Funding ID, evaluated at Step 2 only

• Part II of the Scientific Proposal (max 7 pages, references not counted): detailed explanation of the project implementation: research methodology, work plan, risk assessment and mitigating measures, and any further background not included in Part I. Not a repetition of Part I, and no budget table or description of resources (these sit in Part A).
• Appendix: Funding ID (current grants + ongoing/submitted applications, with clear statement of scientific overlap if any — does not count towards page limit).

Formatting constraints (page limits strictly applied: reviewers read only the material within the limits)

• Page format: A4; each page carries a header with the PI's last name, the proposal acronym and the part (Part B1 or Part B2)
• Font: Times New Roman, Arial or similar, size ≥11pt
• Margins: 2.0 cm sides, 1.5 cm top and bottom
• Line spacing: single
• Language: any official EU language accepted; panels work in English, so English is strongly advisable (non-English proposals are evaluated on an unverified machine translation)
• Do NOT split Part B1 / Part B2 / Funding ID into separate uploads.
• Each Part uploaded as a single PDF in the submission system.

Part A: Administrative Form (online; 7 sections: General Information, Declarations, Participants, Budget, Ethics, Security, Other questions, grouped below as in the form)

1. General Information: Acronym + Proposal title (≤200 chars) + Duration months + Primary ERC Review Panel + Secondary Panel + ERC Keywords + Free keywords + Abstract (max 2000 chars) + Previous submission of this or a very similar proposal in the past 2 years (any EU programme) + Declarations.
2. Participants: Host Institution (organisation data, GEP, departments, address) + Principal Investigator (personal details, ORCID, contact info, career stage) + Main contact person.
3. Budget: Cost table (PI / Senior staff / Post-docs / Students / Other staff PM & cost; Subcontracting; Travel; Equipment; Consumables; Publications; Other direct; Internal; Indirect) + one Resources text box (max 8000 characters) describing and justifying all cost categories, the team, any additional funding, requested equipment, Open Access costs, existing resources and other sources of funding.
4. Ethics & Security: Ethics Issues Table (9 categories: hESC/embryos; Humans; Cells/Tissues; Personal data; Animals; Non-EU countries; Environment/health/safety; AI; Other) + Ethics Self-Assessment (2 free-text fields, ≤5000 chars each) + Security Issues Table (EUCI; Misuse; National security; Other) + Security Self-Assessment.
5. Other Questions: PhD reference date + Medical degree status + Extension Requests (eligibility window, StG/CoG only — N/A for AdG) + Working time commitment (% in EU/AC + % on project) + ERC eligibility acknowledgment + Consent declarations + Data sharing consents + Excluded reviewers (up to 3).

Embedded in Part A Section 3 — no separate budget template Part C. Costs are listed per cost category in the online form (eligible categories: Personnel; Subcontracting; Travel & subsistence; Equipment; Consumables/fieldwork/animal; Publications/dissemination; Other direct; Internally invoiced; Indirect at flat 25%).

No separate equipment table: all budget information must appear in the budget table, and the Resources text box under it (max 8000 characters) gives a short technical description of any requested equipment, why it is needed and how much it will be used. Equipment is declared as depreciation costs; items that may exceptionally be declared as full capitalised costs must be listed and justified in the proposal.