Published: 12 December 2025
Deadline: 21 April 2026
Available budget: 27.8 million EUR
HORIZON-RAISE-2026-01-01: 15 million EUR
HORIZON-RAISE-2026-01-02: 12.8 million EUR
HORIZON-RAISE-2026-01-01
HORIZON-RAISE-2026-01-02
Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls)
5
6
Number of inadmissible proposals
0
0
Number of ineligible proposals
0
1
Number of above-threshold proposals
4
5
Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals
57,961,497.75 €
62,345,060.50 €
Number of proposals retained for funding
1
1
Number of proposals in the reserve list
1
1
Funding threshold
Note: Proposals with the same score were ranked according to the priority order procedure set out in the call conditions.
15.0
13.0
Ranking distribution
Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 15 and higher or equal to 14
1
0
Number of proposals with scores lower than 14 and higher or equal to 13
0
1
Number of proposals with scores lower than 13 and higher or equal to 10
3
4
Summary of observer report:
The observer reviewed the evaluation process for the HORIZON-RAISE-2026-01 call, including the expert briefing sessions, individual evaluations, consensus meetings and final panel meetings. The assessment was based on direct observation of the evaluation process, review of the evaluation documentation and evaluation reports, and observation of the implementation of the evaluation procedures.
The evaluation was conducted in a transparent, fair and well-organised manner. The experts demonstrated a good understanding of the call objectives, evaluation criteria and procedural requirements, supported by comprehensive briefing sessions and clear guidance documentation. Consensus discussions were well moderated, evidence-based and focused on the published evaluation criteria, ensuring consistent application of the evaluation rules across the evaluated proposals.
The evaluation process demonstrated a high level of transparency, impartiality and procedural robustness. The structured consensus methodology and final panel review provided effective quality assurance and supported the consistency, traceability and reliability of the evaluation outcomes. Procedural matters arising during the evaluation were handled in accordance with the applicable rules and guidance.
No significant procedural shortcomings were observed. The evaluation process complied with the applicable rules and guidance documents and provided a robust framework for the consistent, objective and well-documented assessment of proposals.
----
We recently informed the applicants about the evaluation results for their proposals.
For questions, please contact the Research Enquiry Service.
