MSCA Choose Europe for Science 2027 (HORIZON-MSCA-2027-COFUND-02-01): 24/36 + 24 month postdoctoral recruitment

MSCA Choose Europe for Science 2027 (HORIZON-MSCA-2027-COFUND-02-01): 24/36 + 24 month postdoctoral recruitment

The MSCA Choose Europe for Science 2027 call (topic identifier HORIZON-MSCA-2027-COFUND-02-01) is the European Union’s second pilot-style postdoctoral support action under Marie Skłodowska-Curie. The call page describes it as a COFUND-type action that helps host organisations recruit postdocs in ways that improve long-term career prospects, with a built-in transition from an EU-funded phase to a host-funded phase.

This page is a practical guide for teams evaluating whether to prepare and submit a proposal in the 2026–2027 cycle, including what the call covers, who fits, how to avoid ineligibility, and what materials generally strengthen a submission.

Key details at a glance

What this call is actually for

The call is not a standard researcher-only fellowship call. It is designed to shape institutional hiring ecosystems. The EU-facing text positions this initiative as a direct response to postdoctoral precarity and career continuity concerns, rewarding institutions that recruit postdoctoral researchers while offering pathways that remain viable after EU funding expires.

In practical terms, proposals are expected to describe a full programme, not only an individual PI-anchored project. The logic is closer to a workforce development action than a one-off grant for one lab. Organisers are looking for evidence that the host or consortium can recruit multiple postdocs, embed high-quality supervision and mentoring, and maintain quality employment conditions across both phases.

From the official call materials:

• The scheme divides support into phases: first an EU-funded period (24 or 36 months), then a mandatory 24-month phase expected to be funded by the beneficiary.
• Recruitment volume is not optional noise around the application; minimum recruitment is three researchers, and the formal instructions mark proposals below that threshold as ineligible.
• The initiative is explicitly postdoctoral in nature and tied to program-level design: selection procedures, career pathways, and the attractiveness of conditions are core review topics.

That means the proposal is judged on programme architecture and institutional commitment, not just project science novelty alone. A technically strong host with weak HR planning is usually less competitive than a moderate research topic with a robust retention plan.

Who this fits

The strongest applicants are those that can honestly describe a career pipeline and pay-off model beyond the grant period:

• A legal host entity established in an eligible country that is comfortable submitting as a single applicant.
• Organisations already running competitive postdoc recruitment who can show how the three-researcher minimum integrates with existing teams.
• Universities, research institutes, and other eligible bodies prepared to continue support after the EU-funded period.
• Teams that can provide detailed vacancy notices and transparent salary/compensation logic.

The call allows researchers of any nationality to be recruited, but eligibility is constrained by mobility and prior main activity rules in the specific sector rules. The key idea is that the call is designed to support movement and reintegration dynamics, not simply local contract renewal. Institutions should therefore plan for compliant mobility checks before announcing vacancies.

Who is weaker to apply:

• Organisations that have no internal pathway for post-EU funding of selected researchers.
• Single-postdoc pilots that can only support one or two recruits.
• Applicants treating this like a classical single-grant MSCA fellowship.
• Institutions without documented HR and governance processes for transparent, merit-based recruitment.

For applicants coming from outside EU institutions, this call is usually not an individual direct action; it is institution-led. Individual researchers still need an employer/application pathway, and beneficiaries are the central submitter in this action.

Eligibility and compliance conditions (high-risk points)

The call and the Work Programme introduce multiple filters; several are not obvious until proposal checks begin.

Beneficiary eligibility

The host/beneficiary framework is the top filter:

• The applicant must be a single entity established in an EU Member State or Horizon Europe Associated Country.
• Affiliated entities are not eligible as costs in this specific action.
• The applicant must evidence the ability to deliver complementary funding for the beneficiary phase.
• Implementing partners, if used, must be from eligible countries and fully identified in the proposal.

Recruited researcher eligibility

For researcher candidates, the mobility rule is central:

• Recruited researchers must satisfy the scheme mobility constraints (with exceptions for specific protected statuses as specified in legal text).
• They must not be already permanently employed by the recruiting organization.
• They must pass any nationality or residency checks stated for this call type.

Structural and timing constraints

The Work Programme explicitly notes administrative flexibility around publishing times and deadlines (open and deadline adjustments may occur under official discretion). Teams should treat the published dates as the baseline and monitor official notices to avoid late submission mistakes.

The minimum-of-three rule is operationally the most common hidden failure point in this type of call. If your host has only one or two realistic recruits and no clear growth path to three funded hires, the proposal should not proceed without strengthening first.

Financial architecture in plain terms

This action is unit-contribution based. Unlike grants that list a single fixed per-project amount in the front page, this one indicates an overall budget and indicates that the EU contribution per project depends on requested person-months, recruitment profile, and applicable unit rates.

Confirmed official points:

• Overall indicative budget is EUR 51.25 million.
• Budget and implementation figures are subject to the EU budget for 2026/2027 availability.
• The call permits up to two-month deadline flexibility under designated conditions and allows opening shifts.
• EU contribution is capped per beneficiary; the Work Programme states an EU-level cap for this call (and that applicants should align requested costs with this framework).

Because of the two-stage financial model, every budget narrative must separate:

1. EU-funded phase costs
2. Host/beneficiary-funded continuation phase

This separation is not accounting trivia; it is a review point. Reviewers need to see if the host is actually prepared for continuation. If all numbers drop out of the text once EU funding ends, the quality narrative fails at once.

Common budgeting errors here:

• Not quantifying the beneficiary-phase pay and support obligations.
• Assuming that EU funds cover the full 60-month path.
• Ignoring taxation/social contribution components in salary packaging language.
• Underestimating management and non-research cost layers under EU + local rules.

Application process and timeline

For current cycle planning, the sequence is straightforward:

1. Track call page and funding-tendering links.
2. Prepare internal sign-off for compliant recruitment and continuation commitments.
3. Assemble consortium/partner mapping if applicable.
4. Register/prepare the electronic account path required by the portal.
5. Draft proposal to required template format and submit through the portal before the deadline.

The official pages list these broad milestones:

• Launch: 2026-12-08
• Deadline: 2027-04-06 (Brussels time)
• REA and MSCA guidance indicate evaluation and communication through portal channels.

Because all deadlines shown are portal-based and time-sensitive, teams should not assume static windows. MSCA and REA pages also explicitly mention that final dates may shift within defined limits. That is why strong teams build a six-to-eight-week submission buffer before the date shown.

Practical process checkpoints:

• Before the call: finalize internal governance, legal entity role, and HR readiness.
• During the call: verify vacancy notices are compliant, published where expected, and compensation is clearly stated.
• Before submission: run an internal checklist against eligibility rules line-by-line.
• After submission: keep submission confirmation and track all portal messages, especially “acknowledgement of receipt” and portal status fields.

What a competitive application should include

This section is where most institutions win or lose.

1) A realistic recruitment design

Describe not only why this topic matters scientifically, but why this beneficiary can recruit and keep high-quality postdocs. Reviewers read for feasibility:

• Is the host ready to recruit at least three researchers and onboard them with equal standards?
• Are vacancy notices designed to attract international candidates?
• Are selection criteria documented, transparent, and merit-based?

The call language repeatedly emphasizes recruitment quality and open competition. A vague process that says “we will recruit the best candidates” is not enough.

2) Career progression logic beyond grant expiry

The program exists to improve long-term outcomes. Applicants should map each recruited researcher path:

• What concrete position outcomes are expected after EU funding?
• What contractual mechanisms support retention?
• What is the career progression conversation with institution leadership?

This is where this call differs from pure funding programmes: you are being evaluated on future stability promises.

3) Data-backed HR and compensation quality

The call page and programme text explicitly point to advertisement and salary transparency expectations. Include:

• Gross vs net salary treatment,
• social contributions treatment,
• mobility conditions and offer language for relocation conditions,
• equitable remuneration where possible.

4) Scientific plus training quality

Postdoc recruitment quality should be tied to training and supervision architecture:

• Mentoring plans,
• supervision structures,
• career development options,
• international and cross-sectoral training opportunities.

5) Evaluation framing

You should structure the narrative to match likely criterion structure:

• Excellence in design,
• impact of programme outcomes,
• quality and efficiency of implementation.

Even if exact weights vary, poor alignment in one of these areas causes avoidable penalties.

Evidence list and practical preparation checklist

If you are helping a university office, lab, or research director prepare this call, build the dossier in this order:

1. Eligibility declaration package

   • legal entity proof,
   • country eligibility,
   • implementing partner declarations,
   • internal financial commitment documents for phase-two funding.

2. Recruitment governance pack

   • vacancy templates,
   • selection procedures,
   • committee roles,
   • conflict-of-interest rules,
   • mobility verification method.

3. Programme budget pack

   • researcher profiles and requested person-months,
   • funding split between EU-funded and beneficiary-funded phases,
   • social charge and compensation assumptions,
   • project administration and reporting costs.

4. Reviewer-facing narrative pack

   • problem statement,
   • why this programme needs EU support,
   • expected outcomes (talent outcomes, retention outcomes, training outcomes),
   • risk register and mitigation for delays/recruitment bottlenecks.

5. Compliance review

   • mobility rule check for each recruited researcher,
   • confirm no already-permanently employed researcher is inappropriately treated,
   • confirm no ineligible partner is included unless specifically justified.

Common mistake: teams often submit before they close the legal/administrative loop. For this call, that is usually fatal because once submitted, administrative incompatibilities are harder to correct.

FAQ (2026/2027 planning)

Is this an individual fellowship call?

Not in the usual one-researcher sense. It is an institutional recruitment-focused MSCA programme. Individual researchers are essential, but the submitter and implementation structure are beneficiary-led.

Is this for PhD or postdoc?

The call is framed under postdoctoral recruitment within COFUND-style MSCA logic for this topic. You should treat it as a postdoc-focused institutional programme.

Are there fixed funding amounts per award?

Per-project amounts are not presented as a simple fixed cap on the call front table. They are tied to unit contributions and person-month structure in the Work Programme conditions.

Is the call timeline fixed?

Published start/deadline windows are public, and the same official source states the potential for opening and deadline shifts. Always monitor final updates on the portal and official pages.

Can you apply if you want only one postdoc position?

Not likely competitive/eligible unless you can justify scaling to minimum recruitment requirements and programme readiness.

Can non-EU organisations submit?

The applicant beneficiary must be in an EU Member State or Horizon Europe Associated Country for the beneficiary route described.

Common disqualifiers to check before submission

• Submitting with only one or two recruits.
• Missing clear evidence of beneficiary-funded phase support.
• Vague hiring and supervision model.
• Incomplete partner identification when implementing partners are used.
• Submissions that appear to conflict with mobility or employment-status constraints.
• Unclear salary and compensation transparency in vacancy announcements.
• Weak linkage between advertised positions and post-award career outcomes.

Because this is a 2027 cycle call with a public 2026/2027 date footprint, teams should treat this as a planning exercise now, not a last-minute reaction. The proposal quality bar usually depends more on implementation credibility than novelty of idea.

Official links and immediate next actions

• Official overview and latest call window: https://marie-sklodowska-curie-actions.ec.europa.eu/calls/msca-choose-europe-for-science-2027 (resolved to the funding page)
• EU-level programme context and topic list: https://marie-sklodowska-curie-actions.ec.europa.eu/funding/msca-choose-europe-for-science-2027
• REA context page for MSCA actions and calls: https://rea.ec.europa.eu/funding-and-grants/horizon-europe-marie-sklodowska-curie-actions/msca-choose-europe-for-science_ga
• REA “How to apply” guidance (proposal workflow and timeline): https://rea.ec.europa.eu/funding-and-grants/horizon-europe-marie-sklodowska-curie-actions/horizon-europe-msca-how-apply_en
• EU work programme reference for the 2026–2027 MSCA section (including HORIZON-MSCA-2027-COFUND-02-01 timing and detailed conditions): https://www.horizon-europe.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2025-12/programme-de-travail-msca-2026-2027-12039.pdf

Suggested next step for 2026-05-31 teams

Prepare an internal feasibility memo now and leave no gaps in eligibility and continuation funding. If your institution can support at least three researchers and has a written 24-month post-award continuation model, this is a timely strategic target; otherwise, use this period to align internal HR and finance first, then re-evaluate before call launch.