Erasmus+ application checklist 2026: everything before you submit

📋 Key Takeaways

• Applications submitted after the deadline — even by one minute — are automatically rejected with no exceptions
• An invalid or unvalidated OID is one of the most common reasons for non-admissibility rejection
• The Programme Guide identifies six grounds for rejection before evaluation even begins
• For KA210 and KA220, the lump sum tier must be proportionate to the described activities — a mismatch triggers low Quality of Project Design scores
• All partners must have valid OIDs and must be established in an eligible programme country
• Incomplete application forms — mandatory fields left empty — cannot be corrected after the deadline except for clerical errors

OID checklist — for every organisation in the consortium

• ☐ Every participating organisation (coordinator and all partners) has a valid OID registered on the Erasmus+ and European Solidarity Corps Organisation Registration System (for NA-managed actions like KA210, KA220 and KA1)
• ☐ OID registration was completed at least 10 working days before the deadline as a safety buffer — actual processing typically takes 1–5 working days, but don’t cut it close
• ☐ The OID is validated — not just created. Unvalidated OIDs are not accepted
• ☐ The organisation’s legal name, address and registration number in the registration system exactly match the legal documents on file
• ☐ Required identification/legal entity documentation has been uploaded for each participating organisation
• ☐ Banking and financial capacity details have been provided for the coordinator organisation, with additional financial capacity documentation if the grant requested exceeds €60,000
• ☐ If your organisation’s OID was registered under a previous name or address, the record has been updated
• ☐ For HEIs: the institution holds a valid Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE) and the ECHE number is correctly recorded

⚠ High-risk error

An invalid or unvalidated OID is one of the most common causes of non-admissibility rejection. The National Agency cannot correct this after submission. Check OID status well before the deadline — not the day before.

Eligibility checklist

• ☐ The coordinator organisation is legally established in an EU Member State or third country associated to the programme
• ☐ All partner organisations are legally established in EU Member States or third countries associated to the programme
• ☐ For KA210 and KA220: minimum 2 (KA210) or 3 (KA220) partner organisations from different programme countries are confirmed and have valid OIDs
• ☐ For KA220: the coordinator organisation was established at least 2 years before the application deadline
• ☐ For KA122-VET (and other KA1 short-term actions): this is not the organisation’s 4th or subsequent short-term project grant within any 5 consecutive call years (maximum 3 grants per period)
• ☐ The organisation is not a National Agency or a structure hosted by a National Agency (conflict of interest)
• ☐ No organisation in the consortium is established in Belarus or Russia (specific exclusion under current EU restrictive measures)
• ☐ No organisation in the consortium appears on the EU Sanctions Map (sanctionsmap.eu)
• ☐ The project duration selected is within the allowed range for the action (KA210: 6–24 months; KA220: 12–36 months; KA122: 6–18 months)
• ☐ All activities take place in countries of participating organisations (not in non-programme countries, unless specifically justified)

Admissibility checklist

• ☐ The application has been submitted electronically via the correct system — the Erasmus+ application system for NA-managed actions, EU Funding and Tenders Portal for EACEA-managed actions
• ☐ The application has been submitted before the deadline — most NA-managed actions (KA1, KA210, KA220) close at 12:00 Brussels time, while most EACEA-managed actions close at 17:00, but this can vary by applicant category even within the same date (see the deadline table below) — confirm the exact time for your specific action and applicant type
• ☐ All mandatory fields in the application form are completed — no section left blank
• ☐ All required annexes and supporting documents are uploaded where required by the action
• ☐ The application is readable and accessible — no corrupted files, no locked PDFs
• ☐ Part B of the application (project description) does not exceed the page limit — 40 pages for low-value grant calls (€60,000 or below, which covers KA210), 70 pages for most other calls including KA220. Evaluators will not read pages beyond the limit
• ☐ The application has been formally submitted — not just saved as a draft. Check the submission confirmation email
• ☐ A submission confirmation reference number has been recorded

⚠ High-risk error

Deadlines are absolute. An application submitted even a minute past the deadline is automatically rejected. Do not submit in the final hour — technical problems with the submission system in the minutes before the deadline are common, and the National Agency will not accept them as justification for a late submission. Submit at least 2 hours before the deadline.

Lump sum and budget checklist

• ☐ KA210: The lump sum selected (€30,000 or €60,000) is proportionate to the activities described — estimated staff costs and activity costs align with the selected amount
• ☐ KA220: The lump sum tier selected (€120,000 / €250,000 / €400,000) is proportionate to the work packages and outputs described
• ☐ For KA220: the cost estimate is completed per work package with realistic staff day estimates and unit costs — not rounded figures that look estimated rather than calculated
• ☐ The budget narrative (where required) explains the rationale for major budget lines — particularly staff costs and transnational meetings
• ☐ Work Package 1 (project management) is budgeted separately and does not exceed 20% of the total grant for KA220
• ☐ Transnational meeting costs are proportionate — 2–3 meetings for KA210, 3–6 for a 36-month KA220, each with a justified purpose in the work plan
• ☐ No costs are included for activities that are not described in the project narrative

Priority checklist

• ☐ The application addresses at least one horizontal priority or one sector-specific priority relevant to the field
• ☐ Priority alignment is integrated throughout the project design — not listed in a single paragraph disconnected from activities
• ☐ Your National Agency’s published priorities in the national context for the 2026 call have been checked and addressed where applicable
• ☐ If the project addresses inclusion and diversity, this is stated clearly in the Relevance section opening, not buried in a later paragraph
• ☐ The inclusion dimension (if claimed) is backed by specific activities, adapted content or inclusion support measures — not just a general statement
• ☐ The digital dimension is present and specific — not just “we will use email and video calls” but a named digital tool or methodology that is part of the project’s work
• ☐ Green travel is addressed — particularly for trips under 500km, where the Programme Guide states participants will “as a general rule” use low-emissions transport (a real, long-standing expectation, not a new 2026 mandate)

Project description checklist

• ☐ The needs analysis names a specific problem, identifies a specific target group and cites at least 2–3 external sources — not just one EU-level report
• ☐ Project objectives are written as specific, measurable outcomes — not themes or general intentions
• ☐ Each objective connects to at least one activity and at least one output
• ☐ Every activity in the work plan has: a clear purpose, named responsible partner(s), a timeline, a location (country) and a defined output or milestone
• ☐ The EU added value argument explains why results cannot be achieved in one country alone — not just “European cooperation enriches our work”
• ☐ The partnership rationale explains why each partner is in this consortium specifically — their relevant expertise, target group access or methodological contribution
• ☐ Task allocation is roughly balanced — the coordinator does not carry a disproportionate share of the total workload
• ☐ A specific evaluation plan is included: at least 2–3 measurable indicators linked to objectives, a timeline for measurement and a named responsible person
• ☐ Dissemination includes specific channels beyond social media — EPALE, European Youth Portal, sector networks, professional events or authority bodies as appropriate
• ☐ Sustainability describes specifically how each main output will continue to be used after the grant period ends
• ☐ The Erasmus+ Results Platform has been checked — no closely overlapping funded projects in the last 2 calls that undermine the innovation or needs claims

KA1 mobility checklist (KA122-SCH, KA122-VET, KA122-ADU, KA152, KA153)

• ☐ Total participants do not exceed 30 for short-term project actions (KA122)
• ☐ For KA122-VET and KA122-SCH: Courses and Training budget does not exceed 50% of the total project grant (or €20,000, if the total grant is €40,000 or under)
• ☐ Each planned activity has a receiving organisation confirmed and a letter of intent or agreement in place
• ☐ Travel distances have been calculated using the official EC Distance Calculator (straight-line km) — not Google Maps routing distances
• ☐ Individual support rates used are the correct current Programme Guide reference rates for each destination country and participant category — these are ranges your National Agency sets a specific rate within, not flat figures
• ☐ Travel days (up to 2 standard, up to 6 green travel) are correctly included in individual support calculations where applicable
• ☐ Green travel flag: trips under 500km are planned using train or low-emissions transport as the general rule (or justified exception documented)
• ☐ For KA152: participant numbers meet the requirement (16 total minimum, at least 4 per national group — the lower 10-participant minimum applies only to exchanges involving exclusively young people with fewer opportunities), age range 13–30 is met, Youthpass issuance is planned for all participants
• ☐ For accredited actions: Erasmus Accreditation is valid and the activities are consistent with the approved Erasmus Plan
• ☐ Organisational support amounts are correctly calculated (typically €350 per participant for the first 100, €200 for each additional participant in the same activity type — verify the exact figure for your specific action in the current Programme Guide)

Final review checklist

• ☐ Every claim in the Relevance section is substantiated by the project design that follows it — no claims unsupported by activities
• ☐ Activities described in the narrative match the budget — no activities budgeted that are not described, no activities described that are not budgeted
• ☐ Timeline is realistic — a 12-month project with 6 outputs produced, piloted and disseminated is almost always not realistic; check timing against available staff days
• ☐ Partner descriptions are consistent across all sections — names, roles and contributions match between the partnership rationale, the work plan and the budget
• ☐ Page limit is within bounds — print to PDF and count pages before final submission
• ☐ No contradictions between sections — objectives stated in one section that are not addressed elsewhere, or outputs described in the work plan that do not appear in the Impact section
• ☐ Language is clear and direct — no untranslated acronyms, no jargon that evaluators from different sectors may not recognise, no sentences requiring re-reading to understand
• ☐ All partner organisations have been informed of the final version they are consenting to — last-minute changes without partner agreement create governance problems after funding
• ☐ Submission system is tested — login credentials are working, the project has been saved and all sections show as complete in the system dashboard
• ☐ A colleague or external reviewer who was not involved in writing the application has read the Relevance and Quality of Project Design sections and confirmed they are clear to a reader with no prior context

Not Sure Your Application Is Ready?

GrowthProjects.eu provides pre-submission review and full proposal development for KA1, KA210 and KA220 applications. If you have a draft, we can assess it against the evaluation criteria and identify the highest-risk sections before you submit.

Free initial consultation · March 2026 deadline

Get a Pre-Submission Review →

Need a second pair of eyes before you submit?

GrowthProjects.eu provides pre-submission application reviews — we read your draft against the evaluation criteria and identify the highest-risk sections before you submit. Available for KA1, KA210 and KA220. Contact us for a free initial consultation.