Between 60% and 75% of Erasmus+ KA2 applications do not receive funding in any given call. Most of the organisations behind those applications had a genuine project idea that could have made a real difference. The idea was not the problem.
Erasmus+ applications fail at three distinct points — before evaluation begins, at the minimum threshold stage, and in competitive scoring. Each failure point has different causes and different fixes. Understanding which one applies to your rejected application is the starting point for a successful resubmission.
This post covers every category of rejection reason in detail — from the administrative errors that eliminate applications before a single evaluator reads them, to the specific writing and design patterns that consistently score below the minimum thresholds, to the subtle quality differences that separate funded proposals from those left on the reserve list.
📋 Key Takeaways
- Applications are rejected at three stages: pre-evaluation (administrative), threshold (minimum score per criterion) and competitive (total score below funded band)
- Pre-evaluation rejection is entirely avoidable — it is caused by administrative errors that have nothing to do with the quality of the project
- The most common threshold failure in KA210 is scoring below 15/30 on Relevance — almost always caused by a weak needs analysis
- The most common competitive failure is a generic application that could describe any project — evaluators award high scores only to specific, evidence-based proposals
- If your application was rejected, request the Quality Assessment report — it contains your scores per criterion and evaluator comments that are essential for a successful resubmission
- Most rejected applications can be funded in a subsequent call with targeted improvements to the sections that scored below threshold
Stage 1 rejection: before evaluation begins
The 2026 Programme Guide identifies six categories of pre-evaluation rejection. These are binary — your application either passes or it does not — and no amount of project quality rescues an application that fails here.
1. Non-admissibility
The most avoidable category. Applications are rejected for non-admissibility on the following grounds:
- Submitted after the deadline — even by one second. The Programme Guide states the deadline absolutely: “Applications must be sent no later than the deadline for submitting applications.” National Agencies have no discretion. Technical problems on the applicant’s side are not accepted as justification
- Invalid or unvalidated OID — the Organisation ID must be registered and validated in the EU ORS system before submission. An OID that exists but has not been validated by the National Agency is not a valid OID
- Incomplete application form — mandatory fields left empty, required annexes missing. The Programme Guide notes that only clerical errors can be corrected after submission — missing content cannot be added
- Application not readable or accessible — corrupted files, locked PDFs, files in unsupported formats
The deadline problem is more common than you think
The Erasmus+ submission system often experiences heavy traffic in the final hour before the deadline. Applications that are submitted at 11:58 Brussels time occasionally fail to register before 12:00:00 due to server load. Submit at least 2 hours before the deadline. This is not excessive caution — it is standard practice for experienced coordinators.
2. Non-compliance with eligibility criteria
If your organisation or your partner organisations do not meet the eligibility requirements for the chosen action, the application is rejected without evaluation. Common eligibility failures include:
- A partner organisation established in a non-programme country (or a country no longer associated to the programme)
- For KA220: the coordinator established less than 2 years before the deadline
- For KA122-VET: applying for a 4th short-term project grant within the same 5-year period (maximum is 3)
- For KA210: the same organisation involved in more than 5 applications in the same call as coordinator or partner
- For HEIs: missing or expired Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE)
3. Exclusion situations
Organisations on EU sanctions lists, subject to EU restrictive measures, or with findings of serious irregularities or fraud are excluded from all Erasmus+ award procedures. For most legitimate organisations this is not a risk — but it is worth confirming that no partner organisation appears on the EU Sanctions Map (sanctionsmap.eu) before submitting.
4. Insufficient financial or operational capacity
For grants above €60,000 (relevant primarily for KA220), the National Agency verifies whether the applicant organisation has the financial and operational capacity to manage a project of the requested grant size. This is assessed on the basis of the financial information provided in the application and supporting documents.
For KA210 (maximum €60,000), financial capacity verification is based on a self-declaration in the Declaration on Honour — a separate document is not required at this grant level.
Stage 2 rejection: failing the minimum threshold
This is where most rejected applications fall. The minimum threshold system means that falling below half the available points on any single criterion results in automatic rejection — regardless of how well the other criteria score.
KA210 minimum thresholds
| Criterion | Maximum | Minimum | Most common reason for failure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance | 30 | 15 | Weak or generic needs analysis; no documented target group; superficial priority alignment |
| Quality of Project Design | 30 | 15 | Objectives are themes not outcomes; lump sum disproportionate to activities; no evaluation plan |
| Quality of Partnership | 20 | 10 | No strategic rationale for partnership; coordinator does all the work; no coordination mechanisms |
| Impact | 20 | 10 | No sustainability plan; generic dissemination; no measurable indicators |
KA220 minimum thresholds
| Criterion | Maximum | Minimum | Most common reason for failure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance | 25 | 13 | Needs analysis too generic; EU added value not genuinely argued; innovation claim unsubstantiated |
| Quality of Project Design | 30 | 15 | Work plan lacks coherence; work packages poorly defined; budget not justified by activities |
| Quality of Partnership | 20 | 10 | Partnership rationale is personal, not strategic; unbalanced task allocation |
| Impact | 25 | 13 | Dissemination plan is generic; no beyond-project sustainability; weak evaluation methodology |
The ten most common quality failure patterns
These are the patterns that appear most frequently in rejected KA210 and KA220 applications — identified through our work reviewing and rewriting applications that were previously rejected.
1. The needs analysis describes a trend, not a problem
The most common Relevance failure. An application opens with a paragraph about a broad European challenge — “digital skills are increasingly important,” “inclusion remains a challenge across Europe,” “youth unemployment continues to affect Southern Europe” — and then jumps to describing the project.
This is a trend description, not a needs analysis. A needs analysis answers: who specifically is experiencing this problem, in what specific context, with what documented evidence, and why do existing solutions not address it? Without a specific target group, specific evidence and a gap analysis, the Relevance section cannot score above the threshold.
The fix: Identify your specific target group (name them: “non-formal adult education practitioners in rural communities in Greece and Serbia, who have no access to structured professional development in digital facilitation methodologies”), cite at least 3 sources including at least one national-level source per partner country, and explain specifically why existing training offers do not address this gap.
2. Objectives are themes not outcomes
The most common Quality of Project Design failure at threshold level. Objectives like “to promote digital inclusion,” “to improve quality in non-formal education” or “to strengthen European cooperation” are themes. They are not objectives because you cannot measure whether they have been achieved.
An objective is a specific, measurable change that the project will produce within a defined timeframe. “To develop and validate a 6-module competence framework for digital facilitation in non-formal education, piloted with at least 30 practitioners across two partner countries, by Month 18” is an objective.
The fix: For every objective, ask: how will we know, at the end of the project, whether this was achieved? If you cannot answer that question, it is not an objective.
3. The lump sum tier does not match the activities
A very common KA210 failure. Organisations select the €60,000 tier because they want more funding, then describe activities that clearly cost €20,000–€25,000 to deliver. Evaluators cross-check the lump sum against the described activities and budget. A €60,000 application with two transnational meetings and one PDF output will score low on Quality of Project Design regardless of writing quality.
The fix: Estimate your realistic staff costs before selecting your lump sum tier. If your project involves two staff members from each partner organisation working part-time over 18 months with 3 transnational meetings, calculate what that actually costs. If it comes to €28,000, apply for €30,000.
4. Priority alignment is a separate paragraph, not a design principle
A structural mistake that experienced evaluators recognise immediately. Many applications have a dedicated “Priorities” paragraph listing the four horizontal priorities with a sentence each — “This project addresses inclusion by… it addresses digital transformation by…” This paragraph exists separately from the project design and makes no difference to the actual activities described.
Evaluators are trained to check whether priorities are integrated into the project design or just listed in the application. A project that claims to address inclusion must have specific activities designed for people with fewer opportunities. A project that claims to address digital transformation must use digital tools as a genuine part of its methodology — not just for internal communication.
The fix: Remove the priorities paragraph. Instead, ensure the needs analysis identifies a problem experienced by the priority group, the activities are designed to address that group specifically, and the impact section describes outcomes for that group. The priorities appear throughout the project design, not as a separate section.
5. EU added value is stated, not argued
A consistent KA220 Relevance failure. “This project brings EU added value through its transnational dimension” is a statement that the project is international. It is not an argument for why it needs to be international.
EU added value must answer a specific question: why can these results not be achieved by a single-country project? The answer should be specific to this project’s logic — not a general statement about the value of European cooperation.
The fix: For each main output, ask: could this be produced by a national project? If the answer is no — because it requires comparative data from multiple national contexts, because it integrates methodologies that only exist in certain countries, or because its transferability can only be validated by testing in multiple contexts — explain that specifically. If the answer is yes, rethink whether your project actually requires European cooperation or whether KA210 is the right action.
6. Partnership rationale is personal history, not strategic fit
A consistent Quality of Partnership failure. “We have worked with this organisation for 5 years and have a trusted relationship” is a coordination advantage. It is not a strategic rationale for why this specific partner belongs in this specific project.
Evaluators assess whether each partner brings something the coordinator cannot provide alone: specific expertise, access to a target group, a methodology developed in their national context, or a policy framework relevant to scaling the outputs. Personal history can be a supporting note — it cannot be the primary rationale.
The fix: For each partner, answer: what specific competence or target group access does this partner bring that is directly necessary for this project to achieve its objectives? If you cannot answer this for any partner, the partnership has a strategic weakness that evaluators will identify.
7. Activities are described but outputs are not defined
A persistent Quality of Project Design failure. Applications describe workshops, meetings, training sessions and online collaboration in detail — but never clearly state what the project will produce. Activities are the means; outputs are the deliverables.
“We will organise 3 transnational workshops” describes an activity. “We will co-develop a validated facilitator’s guide of approximately 60 pages, piloted with 20 practitioners per partner country and revised based on feedback” describes an output with a delivery mechanism.
The fix: For every main activity cluster, name the specific deliverable it produces — what will exist at the end that did not exist at the beginning? Format, scope, validation method and audience should all be specified.
8. The evaluation plan is missing or generic
A consistent Impact threshold failure. Many applications — particularly first-time KA210 applications — either skip the evaluation plan entirely or write one sentence about it: “We will evaluate the project through surveys and feedback forms.”
Evaluators award credit for an evaluation plan that demonstrates you have thought about how to measure success. It does not need to be an external evaluation methodology — but it must be specific: what indicators, how measured, by whom, when, and how the findings will be used to improve the project during implementation.
The fix: Define 3–5 measurable indicators linked to specific objectives. Include at least one quantitative indicator (number of practitioners trained, number of outputs produced, number of beneficiaries reached) and at least one qualitative indicator (satisfaction rating, competence self-assessment before and after). Specify when each indicator is measured and who is responsible.
9. Sustainability is a wish, not a plan
One of the most commonly underscored Impact sub-criteria. “The project will have lasting impact on our organisations and beyond” scores nothing. Evaluators need to know concretely: after the grant period ends, what happens to each main output?
For each output, describe specifically: who will continue to use it, in what context, reaching how many beneficiaries per year, maintained by which organisation. If the training curriculum will be integrated into the coordinator’s annual professional development programme, say so. If the digital tool will remain freely available on the project website for three years, say so.
10. The application reads like every other application
The competitive failure that is hardest to diagnose from the Quality Assessment report. Evaluators read dozens of applications in each round. Applications that are well-written but generic — that could describe any project by any organisation in any European country — score in the 60–70 range and end up on the reserve list, not funded.
The applications that score 75–90 have something specific and identifiable about them: a specific problem no one has named this clearly before, a partnership that could not be assembled any other way, an innovation that is genuinely new in the field, an inclusion context that is documented and verifiable. Specificity is not just a writing quality — it is a signal to evaluators that the applicant organisation genuinely knows the problem, the field and the target group.
Stage 3 rejection: the reserve list
The reserve list is where applications go when they pass all minimum thresholds and achieve a total score above 60 — but the available budget runs out before their position in the ranking. This is a different kind of rejection from failing a threshold.
Reserve list placement means your application was considered of sufficient quality to be funded — just not in this call, with this budget. If the budget is increased or if higher-ranked applications withdraw, reserve list applications may be funded. This happens occasionally.
More importantly, a reserve list application is much closer to a funded application than a below-threshold rejection. The fixes needed are smaller — improving the two or three criteria that scored in the 70–80% range rather than rebuilding sections that failed the threshold entirely.
In ex-aequo situations — where two or more applications have the same total score — KA210 gives priority to the highest Relevance score first, then Impact. KA220 uses the same tiebreaker order. If your application was reserve-listed in an ex-aequo situation, improving the Relevance section specifically has the highest leverage for the next submission.
What to do after a rejection: the Quality Assessment report
Every rejected application that passes the admissibility and eligibility checks receives a Quality Assessment report from the National Agency. This document contains:
- Your numerical score for each evaluation criterion
- Written comments from the external evaluator explaining why each criterion was scored at that level
- An indication of whether the application was below threshold on any individual criterion or below the overall 60-point minimum
The Quality Assessment report is the single most valuable document for a resubmission. Do not treat it as a verdict — treat it as a detailed brief for the revision. Read each evaluator comment against the section of your application it relates to, and categorise the issues as: weak needs analysis, generic language, missing component, or structural problem.
Most rejected applications fall into one of three patterns:
- One criterion below threshold — a targeted fix to that criterion, with a review to ensure improvements ripple through the rest of the application
- Multiple criteria in the 50–65% range — a more substantial revision, often centred on rebuilding the needs analysis and objectives which affect multiple criteria simultaneously
- Below overall threshold (under 60 points) — a significant rethink of the project concept and possibly the partnership — the project idea itself may not be sufficiently developed
Was Your Erasmus+ Application Rejected?
GrowthProjects.eu provides Quality Assessment review and resubmission support — we read your rejection report, identify the highest-impact fixes and help you rebuild the sections that scored below threshold. Most rejected KA210 and KA220 applications can be funded in the next call with targeted improvements.
Free initial consultation · October 2026 and March 2027 deadline support available
The structural mistakes that cause multiple criterion failures simultaneously
Some mistakes do not just affect one criterion — they cascade through the entire evaluation, pulling multiple scores below threshold at once. These are the highest-leverage fixes in any rejected application.
A weak needs analysis damages Relevance and Quality of Project Design simultaneously. If the need is not documented and specific, the objectives cannot be convincingly connected to a real target group’s problem — which means the Quality of Project Design criterion cannot demonstrate that activities address documented needs. A strong needs analysis lifts both scores at once.
Vague objectives create incoherence across multiple criteria. If objectives are themes rather than outcomes, the work plan cannot show how activities produce measurable results, the evaluation plan has nothing to measure against, and the sustainability plan cannot describe what specifically will continue. Rewriting objectives into specific, measurable outcomes repairs Quality of Project Design and Impact simultaneously.
A weak partnership rationale damages Partnership and Relevance together. If partners are included because of personal history rather than strategic fit, the partner relevance sub-criterion in Relevance scores poorly and the Partnership criterion scores below threshold. Rebuilding the partnership rationale around strategic complementarity lifts both.
Frequently asked questions
Can I resubmit the same application in the next call?
Yes — and in most cases you should, with targeted improvements based on the Quality Assessment report. The same project can be submitted in subsequent calls. There is no rule preventing resubmission of a previously rejected application, and many funded Erasmus+ projects were rejected once or twice before being selected.
How do I get my Quality Assessment report?
Your National Agency sends the Quality Assessment report automatically after the grant decision is communicated — typically 3–4 months after the application deadline. If you have not received it within a month of the grant notification, contact your National Agency directly and request it. It is your right to receive this feedback.
Is it worth resubmitting if my application scored below 60 overall?
It depends on the Quality Assessment comments. If the evaluator identified fundamental issues with the project concept itself — the need is not documented, the partnership does not make sense, the activities do not match the objectives — a full rethink may be needed before resubmission. If the evaluator identified specific, fixable issues in the writing or structure, resubmission with targeted improvements is well worth pursuing.
What if I disagree with the evaluator’s comments?
You can submit a complaint to your National Agency — but the complaint must focus on procedural irregularities, factual errors or manifest errors of assessment, not on disagreeing with the evaluator’s qualitative judgment. “The evaluator did not understand the value of our project” is not a valid complaint ground. “The evaluator’s score is incoherent with their written comments” may be. Read the Programme Guide Part C complaints procedure before submitting.
If my application was on the reserve list, should I resubmit in the next call?
Yes — and with more targeted improvements than a below-threshold rejection requires. A reserve list application needs marginal improvements in the criteria that scored in the 70–80% range, particularly Relevance (which is the tiebreaker for ex-aequo cases). A well-executed revision of a reserve list application has a very high probability of funding in the following call.
Need help reading your Quality Assessment and planning your resubmission?
GrowthProjects.eu reviews Quality Assessment reports, identifies the highest-impact fixes and builds resubmission plans for KA210 and KA220 applications. We also write new applications from scratch for organisations that have never applied before. Contact us for a free initial consultation.
All rejection grounds, minimum thresholds and Quality Assessment procedures cited in this article are based on the official Erasmus+ Programme Guide 2026 (Version 1, published 12 November 2025), Part C pages 415–426 and Part B award criteria sections for KA210 (pages 248–249) and KA220 (pages 239–241). Rejection pattern analysis reflects GrowthProjects.eu experience reviewing and rewriting Erasmus+ applications.
