All actions: If an MSCA beneficiary offers to all its employees a mandatory complementary health insurance, would it have to be funded with the Living allowance?

If it is taken directly from the employees’ salary, then it should be deducted from the Living allowance. Moreover, all health insurance and social security contributions, including all benefits arising from the collective bargaining agreement, should be covered within the Living allowance.

PF: An error appears in the budget section in Part A. What should applicants do?

This is an IT issue and should be resolved by the end of July. This warning has not blocked proposal submission, and all applicants can proceed with submitting their proposals.

DN: Is there a template for a declaration for respecting the mobility rule from Doctoral Candidates that will be recruited by a DN beneficiary?

There is no official declaration for respecting the mobility rule. Beneficiaries could include in their application forms a section where candidates confirm they meet the mobility rule, indicating their places of residence, study, and employment during the relevant 36-month period. In addition, beneficiaries could ask for extra documentation in order to double-check their mobility status (residence registration certificates or another official proof of address, as well as entry / exit records).

PF: A postdoctoral fellow participated in a strike organised by the Union and the Ministry in charge issued a note that the time spent on a strike will not be paid. Should the fellow receive the whole amount of Living allowance for that month?

The beneficiary could declare the actual working time on a pro rata basis for the respective month, excluding the strike day(s) from the final cost statement. This would ensure that there is no discrepancy between the salary paid and the EU contribution reimbursed to the beneficiary. The Project Officer should of course be informed.

PF: Can fieldwork for a period of 4 months in another country qualify as a short visit?

If the visits are split and do not exceed one month in duration each, they can classify as “field trips” or “short visits”. They have to be explained in detail and specify what type of data or information will be collected.

It is critical that the researcher calculates the cost of those four months of visits to ensure there is adequate budget to cover their cost, which may not be the case given the existing Research, Training and Networking costs and the rest of the RTN activities (conferences, secondments, publications) planned.

PF: A PF applicant has experience in a private company in research and product development. Should “development” be considered as part of the research activity, and then count for the 8-year rule?

If that product development is related to creating or improving products in the company (testing, experimentation, prototyping), that counts as part of Research & Development.

It can be excluded if product development is more “commercial” than “research” development, but the applicant should have the evidence to prove their eligibility.

It is crucial to emphasize that the clearance of proposal eligibility will be conducted by the European Research Executive Agency after the call deadline, considering the numerous potential scenarios. Consequently, eligibility for individual applicants (both researchers and institutions) prior to the call deadline cannot be assessed or confirmed. It is the sole responsibility of the applicants to diligently review all eligibility criteria and ensure the provision of accurate information in the submission forms.

PF: Can a company be registered under the name of a Postdoctoral Fellow during their fellowship?

A company can be opened, but the researcher will have to negotiate part-time work with the host organisation and the project officer to be able to devote time to the company.

Moreover, the MSCA PF contract  (full-time-equivalent) will not be accepted as eligible by auditors if the researcher has an additional contract with their own company.

DN: Is it possible to have a Standard DN proposal with 12 doctoral candidates, 6 of them with co-supervisors and a double PhD degree, while the other 6 with 50% of time spent in the non-academic sector and only 1 PhD degree?

It is acceptable, but has to be argued very well, in order to demonstrate the added value of such a set-up and show that none of the PhD candidates will be disadvantaged.

However, as there can be challenges with the recruitment procedure, the different training paths and different supervision arrangements, the administrative burden should not be underestimated.

 

DN: Can applicants remove the remaining tags in the application form, or should they stay in the template?

REA confirms that all tags can be removed – they are no longer needed.

PF: Is a marital relationship between an applicant and the main supervisor considered a conflict of interest? Does it create any restriction or eligibility issue regarding the submission, evaluation, or implementation of an MSCA PF proposal?

Although supervision can be built on an existing collaborative relationship, the supervisor’s choice should be driven by the added value to the project. The applicant needs to justify the complementarity between their profile and the supervisor’s expertise, and if they have already worked together, they will need to explain what new techniques, methods, or specialised knowledge they will acquire that they have not already gained from previous common activities. Unless they can justify their supervisor’s choice (e.g., unique expertise, specific training needs, intersectoral added value, etc.), this could be viewed as a convenient choice that could affect the evaluation of the proposal.