Preparing an EU-funded project proposal requires significant effort: from understanding the context of the call and related strategic documents, through detailed planning of activities, to compiling extensive administrative documentation. Because of this, rejection, despite the effort invested and a formally correct application, often causes confusion and understandable dissatisfaction among applicants. However, experience shows that content quality alone is not always enough to secure funding. Many proposals, although thematically relevant and technically sound, fail to meet a number of additional, less visible criteria that evaluators consider and which are often decisive for the final outcome.
First and foremost, it is important to distinguish between formal eligibility and the assessment of quality and strategic relevance. A project can meet all administrative requirements, have appropriate objectives and a logical framework, and still fall short due to nuances that influence the final ranking, such as the clarity of the target group, the concrete applicability of results, or the strength of the partnership. Projects that do not show a strong link to the call’s objectives or that describe activities generically, without precise reasoning, often lose points, even if they appear solid at first glance.
Another reason lies in understanding the broader strategic context. A project that is thematically interesting but does not align with national or local development priorities has significantly lower chances of success. Evaluators look for projects that not only meet the requirements, but also complement existing policies, strategies, and development plans: from the Recovery and Resilience Plan and the National Development Strategy to county-level plans. Applicants who fail to reference key strategic documents, or do so superficially, often give the impression of not having properly examined the context.
Further issues arise when a project looks perfect “on paper,” but shows weaknesses in implementation. Evaluators often penalize proposals that include partners only formally, without a clear distribution of responsibilities, or those that plan activities that are unrealistic within the proposed timeframe. An underdeveloped dissemination plan may signal a lack of broader impact. In addition, unclear or insufficiently quantified result monitoring, such as general formulations without measurable performance indicators, often leads to lower evaluation scores.
Another often overlooked aspect involves horizontal principles such as gender equality, environmental sustainability, and digital inclusion. Calls for proposals clearly highlight the importance of these principles, but applicants frequently treat them as peripheral or secondary. Evaluators, however, examine how these principles are concretely embedded in project activities, whether they are merely mentioned or actually operationalized. A project that systematically includes diverse groups, promotes sustainable practices, and accounts for inclusivity will be recognized as more relevant, even when the thematic idea is similar to others.
The way a project is presented also plays a key role. A good project is not just a good idea, but a clear, coherent, and logically structured document that guides the evaluator through the problem, solution, and expected impact. Disorganized formulations, vague claims, and aimless sentences make evaluation more difficult and reduce the overall impression of project quality.
Many high-quality projects do not receive funding not because they are poorly designed, but because they are not sufficiently aligned with the evaluation logic and strategic direction of the call. A strong project must also be relevant, feasible, well-networked, and communicatively precise. In the competitive arena of EU funding, the details make the difference and it is often these less visible reasons that decide the winner.
