Ettevalmistustoetuse taotlemine

Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)1070686 - 30/01/2026 Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report Call: HORIZON-CL2-2025-01 Type of action: HORIZON-RIA Proposal number: 101287347 Proposal acronym: DWAI360 Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Digital Well-being & Achievement Impact – 360° Activity: HORIZON-CL2-2025-01-TRANSFO-07 N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 596,125 17.53% 596,125 17.53% 2 TECHNION - ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY IL 531,343.75 15.63% 531,343.75 15.63% 3 UNIVERSITAT LINZ AT 553,750 16.29% 553,750 16.29% 4 UNIVERSITA CATTOLICA DEL SACRO CUORE IT 553,750 16.29% 553,750 16.29% 5 Sihtasutus TI-Hüpe EE 69,875 2.06% 69,875 2.06% 6 MindCET IL 71,750 2.11% 71,750 2.11% 7 EDUCRAFTOR OY AB FI 40,062.5 1.18% 40,062.5 1.18% 8 INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS SRL IT 69,875 2.06% 69,875 2.06% 9 CENTRE FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IL 71,125 2.09% 71,125 2.09% 10 MATHEARENA GMBH AT 69,875 2.06% 69,875 2.06% 11 GELLIFY ITALIA SRL IT 69,875 2.06% 69,875 2.06% 12 EDEN DIGITAL LEARNING EUROPE EE 192,500 5.66% 192,500 5.66% MITTETULUNDUSUHING 13 Tallinn International School OÜ EE 85,625 2.52% 85,625 2.52% 14 Püha Johannese Kool SA EE 85,625 2.52% 85,625 2.52% 15 TAMPEREEN KORKEAKOULUSAATIO SR FI 268,875 7.91% 268,875 7.91% 16 Praktikal Education OÜ EE 69,875 2.06% 69,875 2.06% Total: 3,399,906.25 3,399,906.25 Abstract: 101287347/DWAI360-30/01/2026-08:59:33 1/4  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)1070686 - 30/01/2026 DWAI-360 (Digital Well-being & Achievement Impact – 360°) is a multi-country secondary-education research initiative that applies an Innovation Laboratory methodology to develop, pilot and assess four low-cost, scalable interventions targeting adolescents’ cognitive, emotional and social well- being alongside their academic achievement. The acronym reflects our focus on Digital (everyday online environments and tools), Well-being (cognitive, emotional and social health), Achievement (academic progress and competence development) and Impact (measurable effects of our interventions), all viewed through a 360° lens that gathers data from students, parents, teachers and school leaders. Conducted in Estonia, Austria, Italy and Israel by a 21-partner consortium—including academic institutions, EdTech and AI-tech firms, secondary schools and an international digital-innovation network, with local policy-maker support—the project continuously collects real-world usage data on digital-tool interactions. The interventions comprise: (1) an AI-powered learning environment for metacognitive skill and AI-literacy development; (2) reflective “purposeful digital-tool” frameworks guiding healthy classroom technology use; (3) inclusive social-presence platforms integrating universal-design, telepresence and AI chatbots; and (4) well-being–centered learning spaces enhanced with VR, biofeedback and stakeholder workshops. Employing mixed-methods impact assessment (surveys, performance tasks, physiological measures, interviews) and FAIR data management via the European Open Science Cloud, DWAI-360 will deliver evidence-based recommendations for inclusive, AI-enhanced secondary schooling across Europe. Our approach departs from Bronfenbrenner’s holistic, child-centered ecological model of student development, embeds the quadruple-helix innovation framework, and integrates an AI literacy framework to inform policy and practice at the EU level. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 12.00 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the state of the art. The objectives are clear and consistent with the topic’s description on transformative and inclusive learning environments, advancing wellbeing research and responsible digital educational practice through an ecosystemic approach to learners’ cognitive, emotional, and social development. The proposal addresses key challenges in school-based digitalisation and evidence-based learner support. Measurability is demonstrated through a structured progression from piloting to large-scale validation, baseline mapping of digital habits, and prototypes for wellbeing assessment and teacher training. Quantification is outlined through performance indicators, reflecting an intention to enable monitoring and refinement. However, the objectives are not fully verifiable due to the lack of clear thresholds and comparative benchmarks. The objectives are realistically achievable, with phased and scalable implementation steps engaging educational authorities and networks to enhance systemic relevance. Ambition is evident in the integration of subjective and objective wellbeing indicators within an ecological model linking digital engagement, learning, and psychosocial outcomes. The methodological synthesis combining validated wellbeing measures with behavioural analytics represents plausible innovation and progress beyond the state of the art. Yet, the novelty of this framework and its comparative advantage over existing approaches remain insufficiently substantiated, as it is not clearly demonstrated how the ecological model surpasses existing wellbeing measurement frameworks (e.g. OECD or PISA wellbeing indicators). - Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, inter-disciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate. The methodological framework is coherent and conceptually strong, grounded in ecological and psychological models that link cognitive, emotional, and social dimensions of learners’ wellbeing. The theoretical foundation is clear and credible, though the operational design for sampling, data validation, and triangulation is not sufficiently described and offers limited insight into procedures that ensure transparency and replicability. Inter-disciplinary approach of education, psychology, data science, and the social sciences is well conceived and consistent with the objectives. The inclusion of SSH expertise and youth participation contributes to the project’s transdisciplinary nature. The cooperation among disciplines is credible, though the description of how analytical frameworks are applied jointly across tasks remains brief. Participatory and co-creation elements involving students, teachers, and parents are appropriate and coherent with the inclusive orientation of the work. References to activities such as focus groups and validation workshops indicate a participatory approach, though the link between these contributions and the subsequent implementation phases is not fully elaborated. The gender perspective is addressed through disaggregated data and attention to balanced representation, yet gender-sensitive indicators in sampling and analysis are not explicitly defined. Open science and data management practices follow FAIR principles, with clear commitments to anonymisation, data sharing, and open access under GDPR compliance. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) 101287347/DWAI360-30/01/2026-08:59:33 2/4  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)1070686 - 30/01/2026 The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions from the project. Pathways to impact are well structured and address scientific, societal, and technological dimensions through interconnected routes linking research, piloting, and uptake activities which strengthens credibility for achieving benefits in student wellbeing and teachers’ capacity to adopt AI responsibly. These routes correspond to the expected outcomes of the call, particularly those promoting responsible AI use in education. Impact mechanisms are further reinforced through community building, teacher training, development of digital wellbeing tools, and partnerships with ministries, EdTech companies, and international education networks. Continuous stakeholder involvement throughout implementation enhances opportunities for reuse and uptake of results. Quantitative and qualitative indicators for monitoring outcomes are presented. However, the way wellbeing indicators are defined lacks clarity and makes it harder to assess long-term effects. While pathways to immediate pedagogical improvement and responsible AI use are convincing, the connection to broader societal and economic impacts, such as mental health benefits or labour-market outcomes, remains largely conceptual. Potential barriers, including policy constraints, are acknowledged but not sufficiently detailed. Barriers related to cross-country comparability and differing digital policies are only briefly discussed. The expected contribution at pilot and national levels is significant and credible, while large-scale systemic impact across Europe depends on further consolidation of evidence and policy engagement. - Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities. Dissemination, exploitation, and communication measures are comprehensive and logically structured. Activities are tailored to reach distinct audiences, including educators, learners, families, policymakers, and the scientific community. Multi-channel dissemination through conferences, open-access publications, and digital platforms is thoughtfully planned, with incentives such as training credits for teachers to encourage uptake of educational tools and responsible AI practices. Target groups are well identified, and messages are adapted to their specific contexts. Channels such as LinkedIn, newsletters, and TikTok effectively address different audiences, though outreach to policymakers and institutional decision-makers is less elaborated. Continuous engagement throughout implementation promotes visibility and long-term interest, supported by planned communities of practice and post-project networking. The exploitation plan is detailed and combines open-access dissemination with selective IP protection for exploitable components. Data are to be shared openly under FAIR principles, while commercially viable elements are licensed to ensure sustainability. However, the hybrid strategy for the core algorithm and the commitment on long-term governance is not fully clearly described. The communication strategy is creative and inclusive, integrating social media campaigns, webinars, and outreach events. While visibility and inclusiveness are well considered, mechanisms for feedback, resource allocation, and assessment of communication effectiveness are not fully described. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall. The work plan is coherent and well organised, following a clear sequence from small-scale pilots to large-scale interventions. Activities are logically connected and the sequencing between milestones and deliverables allows efficient monitoring; for instance, the milestone on pilot tools and protocols precedes the synthesis of pilot case studies, ensuring that findings are integrated into subsequent phases. The Gantt chart demonstrates how outputs from one work package inform the next, providing transparency and strong internal coordination. However, while quality assurance and acceptance thresholds are consistently referenced, the procedures for follow-up and corrective actions in case thresholds are not achieved are not sufficiently detailed. Deliverables and milestones are precisely defined and linked to indicators for progress tracking. The timeline is realistic, with revision points foreseen for adaptation to unforeseen participation or data challenges. Resource allocation is balanced across partners and work packages and proportionate to their roles. The larger workload of the coordinating and technical partners is reflected in their budget share, while the lump-sum structure follows project logic and ensures sufficient implementation capacity. A few cost categories, such as travel and equipment, are not explicitly connected to individual work packages, slightly reducing budget transparency but without affecting overall adequacy. Risk assessment is well developed and reflects strong awareness of implementation challenges. Identified risks cover participation rates, evidence gaps, and data- collection delays. Mitigation measures, including time scheduling and continuous assessment, are outlined, though some contingency procedures are not sufficiently detailed. The lack of clearly defined escalation or backup procedures limits evaluation of risk resilience. - Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise. The consortium provides complementary expertise and resources in technology and learning science, with adequate operational capacity and access to school environments, although the balance with wellbeing expertise remains limited. The roles are generally aligned with expertise, yet the linkage between technical development and school-based implementation is not sufficiently demonstrated. Interdisciplinary collaboration, including integration across WPs, requires clarification. Expertise in open science practices and gender aspects of R&I are not sufficiently appropriately described. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding 101287347/DWAI360-30/01/2026-08:59:33 3/4  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)1070686 - 30/01/2026 A third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided 101287347/DWAI360-30/01/2026-08:59:33 4/4  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026.01.30 10:12:30 CET This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally sealed. This digital signature mechanism, using a public-private key pair mechanism, uniquely binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integrity. Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic signature, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation symbol. More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders Portal. (https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)1035714 - 29/01/2026 Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe Framework Programme (HORIZON) Report - Staff Exchanges Call: HORIZON-MSCA-2025-SE-01 Type of action: HORIZON-TMA-MSCA-SE Proposal number: 101299876 Proposal acronym: DATA4RIGHTS Duration (months): 48 Proposal title: Enhancing Digital Governance and Data Protection through Interdisciplinary Academic Collaboration Activity: SOC N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 190,380 16.17% 190,380 16.17% 2 University of Pretoria ZA 130,260 11.06% 130,260 11.06% 3 UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI KE 125,250 10.64% 125,250 10.64% 4 MAKERERE UNIVERSITY UG 95,190 8.09% 95,190 8.09% 5 UNIVERSITY OF RWANDA RW 100,200 8.51% 100,200 8.51% 6 UNIWERSYTET W BIALYMSTOKU PL 90,180 7.66% 90,180 7.66% 7 UNIVERSIDAD DE VIGO ES 120,240 10.21% 120,240 10.21% 8 UNIVERSITAT KOBLENZ DE 105,210 8.94% 105,210 8.94% 9 ALMA MATER STUDIORUM - UNIVERSITA DI BOLOGNA IT 115,230 9.79% 115,230 9.79% 10 MZUMBE UNIVERSITY TZ 105,210 8.94% 105,210 8.94% Total: 1,177,350 1,177,350 Abstract: DATA4RIGHTS focuses on this gap between regulation and reality. Through secondments between partner universities, researchers will work on comparative case studies, field-based legal analysis, and co-developed teaching materials that look at how data protection laws are applied in real settings, from public services to fintech startups and digital ID systems. The project brings together legal scholars, digital governance researchers, and ICT-informed academics to work across disciplines. Seconded staff will carry out short research stays in partner institutions, participate in joint teaching, and contribute to the creation of open-access resources on digital rights. Key themes include regulatory coordination, the role of universities in digital policy development, and the challenges of ensuring privacy, consent, and fairness in emerging digital infrastructures. DATA4RIGHTS is designed as an interdisciplinary and transnational exchange of perspectives and practices. It contributes to capacity-building, skills development, and the long-term integration of African and European academic communities working on one of the most pressing global challenges: how to make digital transformation more accountable, inclusive, and rights-based. DATA4RIGHTS also seeks to generate actionable insights for policymakers, regulators, and civil society actors. The project emphasizes not only theoretical analysis but also the translation of research into practical frameworks and tools that can guide institutions in bridging the gap between legal standards and everyday digital practices. It aims to strengthen evidence-based policymaking, empower marginalized voices in digital governance debates, and establish a durable network of expertise committed to advancing rights-respecting digital transformations worldwide. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 77.20 % (Threshold: 70 /100.00) Criterion 1 - Excellence 101299876/DATA4RIGHTS-29/01/2026-14:23:26 1/4  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)1035714 - 29/01/2026 Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 0 / 5.00 , Weight: 50.00% ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: • Quality and pertinence of the project’s research and innovation objectives (and the extent to which they are ambitious, and go beyond the state of the art). • Soundness of the proposed methodology (including interdisciplinary approaches, consideration of the gender dimension and other diversity aspects if relevant for the research project, and the quality and appropriateness of open science practices). • Quality of the proposed interaction between the participating organisations in light of the research and innovation objectives. The proposal is interdisciplinary. Research and innovation objectives are clear, measurable, verifiable and realistically achievable. They address relevant knowledge gaps in data governance, data protection and institutional practices across EU–Africa contexts. The proposal is ambitious and goes beyond the state-of-the-art by combining comparative legal perspectives, institutional analysis and digital governance approaches. The positioning of universities as active actors in shaping digital futures adds strong conceptual value. The overall methodology is well-described and well-structured, with coherent pillars across logical phases to achieve the project objectives. The structure credibly supports comparative work, contextual considerations and capacity building. However, certain aspects such as data harmonisation, use of tools, validation processes and integration of methodological components require further clarification. Moreover, the methodological challenges are minimally addressed. The interdisciplinarity is robust, bringing together expertise in law, political science, ICT, sociology, education and citizen engagement. The international and inter- sectoral dimensions are well integrated into empirical work and mobility activities. Gender dimension is broadly considered and integrated by collecting sex- disaggregated data. Although the commitment to balanced participation is evident, diversity aspects are insufficiently discussed. Open science practices are integrated appropriately across the project's workflow, and there is a coherent and concise plans for implementing the FAIR principles. A well-structured description of each partner’s contribution, showing clear complementarity and coherence with their expertise is convincingly presented. Roles and scientific responsibilities are well-balanced between EU and African institutions, reflecting effective coordination, knowledge exchange, technical and methodological support, stakeholder engagement and cross-regional collaboration. Networking activities are well-justified and aligned with the project's research and training activities, combining secondments, conferences, workshops and online collaboration. However, some elements, including participant profiles, expected outputs and frequency of events are insufficiently described. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 3.80 (Threshold: 0 / 5.00 , Weight: 30.00% ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: • Developing new and lasting research collaborations, achieving transfer of knowledge between participating organisations and contribution to improving research and innovation potential at the European and global level. • Credibility of the measures to enhance the career perspectives of staff members and contribution to their skills development. • Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities. • The magnitude and importance of the project’s contribution to the expected scientific, societal and economic impacts. A credible foundation for developing new collaborations through structured secondments, co-created outputs, stakeholder engagement and collaborative research activities is convincingly presented. These mechanisms support the strengthening of institutional relationships across EU and African partners. However, activities for developing long-term research collaboration are not sufficiently described. The capacity to generate knowledge transfer beneficial for the participating organisations is well presented. The expected generation and knowledge sharing are realistically explained relying on well-defined practical and complementary approaches. Potential exists to enhance research and innovation capacity across regions by addressing digital rights, governance and data regulation in an international perspective. Cross-regional learning contributes to shared innovation and capacity building, in academia, and policy making. However, how the research and innovation potential will scale-up to Europe and worldwide is not clearly explained. The proposal includes well-suited plans to enhance individual potential by combining mentored training with international and intersectoral collaboration in both research and teaching. While activities will improve fellows' careers, the link between new skills and the career perspectives is not clearly outlined. The dissemination and communication plan is well described and aligned with objectives, including relevant activities and multiple channels, project website, measurement criteria, and target audiences with local-language communication. However, exploitation elements remain generic and some activities are not well defined. The consortium has a clear vision for the IP management, including long-term accessibility of results. The proposal outlines credible strategies for handling different IP issues by complying with EU IP laws, which will be adapted to align with the African legal framework. The scientific impact is well presented by advancing comparative research on digital governance, introducing new methodologies and fostering cross-regional knowledge production. Economic and technological impacts are mostly well identified by promoting more transparent, resilient, and interoperable digital governance systems, infrastructures and public services. However, some impacts related to technological infrastructures in some peripheral areas are not insufficiently addressed. The societal challenges, such as the digital divide, digital rights, and inclusion are credibly addressed. They demonstrate strong potential to enhance agency, accessibility, and digital literacy among vulnerable groups. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 3.60 (Threshold: 0 / 5.00 , Weight: 20.00% ) 101299876/DATA4RIGHTS-29/01/2026-14:23:26 2/4  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)1035714 - 29/01/2026 The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: • Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages. • Quality, capacity and role of each participant, including hosting arrangements and extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise. The work plan is coherent, logically structured, and aligned with the project objectives. The work packages cover research, training, management, and dissemination in a comprehensive manner, with a sequence of activities that supports the planned progression of work. However, some components of the work plan lack sufficient detail, and some elements are somewhat unrealistic, given the consortium size and distribution of responsibilities. Specific activities are not fully explained within the work package structure. The secondments are clearly linked to research and capacity-building objectives. Their overall structure is coherent within the project’s implementation framework. However, the description of individual secondments lacks sufficient detail, including clarity on duration and the specific nature of the tasks to be conducted during mobility periods. The consortium brings together staff with diverse and complementary expertise in the relevant fields. The profiles are appropriate for carrying out the planned activities and supporting the training and supervision needs of the project. Most of the risks are well assessed and cover a wide range of potential operational, methodological, engagement and contextual risks, with realistic and proportionate mitigation measures. However, technological risks such as access to electricity and infrastructure or risks in the peripheries, are not sufficiently explained. The organisations provide appropriate infrastructure and institutional capacity with access to research facilities, ICT resources, and administrative support that align well with their assigned tasks. The consortium's participants demonstrate strong complementarity and coherence between partners’ expertise and assigned tasks. The combination of EU and African institutions provides theoretical depth and practical relevance, with extensive collaborative research, policy engagement, digital governance or inclusive innovation. SSH expertise is very well-embedded. Open science practices are sufficiently addressed, with a description of procedures consistent with FAIR principles and Horizon Europe standards. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding A third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: Not provided Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: Not provided Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided 101299876/DATA4RIGHTS-29/01/2026-14:23:26 3/4  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)1035714 - 29/01/2026 Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided Overall comments Not provided 101299876/DATA4RIGHTS-29/01/2026-14:23:26 4/4  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026.01.29 14:50:49 CET This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally sealed. This digital signature mechanism, using a public-private key pair mechanism, uniquely binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integrity. Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic signature, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation symbol. More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders Portal. (https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)1067408 - 30/01/2026 Proposal Evaluation Form EUROPEAN COMMISSION Evaluation Summary Horizon Europe (HORIZON) Report Call: HORIZON-CL2-2025-01 Type of action: HORIZON-RIA Proposal number: 101270899 Proposal acronym: DECIDE.EU Duration (months): 36 Proposal title: Digital Citizenship Education to Increase Youth Democratic Engagement and Support for Common European Values Activity: HORIZON-CL2-2025-01-DEMOCRACY-10 N. Proposer name Country Total % Grant % eligible Requested costs 1 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL EE 492,500 15.06% 492,500 15.06% 2 FAKULTETA ZA INFORMACIJSKE STUDIJE V NOVEM SI 595,000 18.19% 595,000 18.19% MESTU 3 Ciudadanos letones LV 337,500 10.32% 337,500 10.32% 4 ASOCIACION BUILDING BRIDGES ES 148,750 4.55% 148,750 4.55% 5 EESTI POLIITILISTE LIIT MTU EE 307,500 9.40% 307,500 9.40% 6 UNIWERSYTET WROCLAWSKI PL 148,750 4.55% 148,750 4.55% 7 RESEARCH CENTRE - REGIONAL AND GLOBAL BG 148,750 4.55% 148,750 4.55% DEVELOPMENT 8 Association for Communication and Media Culture HR 148,750 4.55% 148,750 4.55% 9 ASOCIATIA MEDIAWISE SOCIETY RO 148,750 4.55% 148,750 4.55% 10 REGIONALEN TSENTAR ZA PODKREPA NA PROTSESA BG 200,000 6.11% 200,000 6.11% NA PRIOBSHTAVASHTO OBRAZOVANIE SOFIA GRAD 11 CASA DO PROFESSOR PT 148,750 4.55% 148,750 4.55% 12 SUOMEN LASTENKULTTUURILIITTO RY FI 148,750 4.55% 148,750 4.55% 13 UNIVERSITAET MUENSTER DE 148,750 4.55% 148,750 4.55% 14 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI MACERATA IT 148,750 4.55% 148,750 4.55% Total: 3,271,250 3,271,250 Abstract: 101270899/DECIDE.EU-30/01/2026-08:42:54 1/4  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)1067408 - 30/01/2026 As the EU navigates a complex digital landscape, education systems must empower young people for critical, informed, safe and ethical civic participation online and offline. Digital environments are central to youth life, offering opportunities for learning and democratic engagement, but also challenges such as polarization, disinformation, AI bias, cybersecurity threats and risks to well-being. DECIDE.EU strengthens youth digital civic knowledge, fosters understanding of democratic institutions and rights in digital contexts, and nurtures dialogue, tolerance and responsible participation. It also supports the pedagogical dissemination of Common European values to support active and informed youth engagement. Several EU and Council of Europe frameworks guide this work, including the Digital Citizenship Education Handbook and Curriculum Framework (DCE Planner), the European Democracy Action Plan, the Digital Education Action Plan, DigComp 2.2 and the 2023 Council of the EU Conclusions on Education’s contribution to strengthening values and citizenship. DECIDE.EU investigates how such frameworks can be effectively implemented and scaled across diverse education systems, considering socio- cultural, historical and economic differences. Using SSH mixed-methods approach, it combines expert Delphi panels, youth focus groups, comparative survey analysis and path dependency studies. The project generates context-sensitive evidence on barriers and enablers of digital citizenship education, providing policy recommendations, cross-sectoral collaboration guidelines and a Context.DCE Toolkit for Educators. By facilitating inclusive, participatory and evidence-based digital citizenship education, DECIDE.EU empowers youth and educators across formal and non-formal settings to reinforce democratic resilience and strengthen shared European values. Evaluation Summary Report Evaluation Result Total score: 11.50 (Threshold: 10 ) Criterion 1 - Excellence Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Clarity and pertinence of the project’s objectives, and the extent to which the proposed work is ambitious and goes beyond the state of the art. The proposal focuses on youth starting from kindergarten and on formal education, with a particular focus on Digital Citizenship Education (DCE). The objectives are clearly articulated and relevant to the call topic. The objectives are also specific and realistic. However, the project lacks concrete Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and defined target which weaken their measure-ability and verifiability. As a result, it affects the credibility of claims regarding adaptability and scalability of the objectives. The current scientific and practical foundations of DCE and civic and citizenship education (CCED) are not adequately elaborated and lacks strong justification. The proposal also does not clearly demonstrate the engagement with academic literature which weakens the theoretical foundation of the proposal. The claim to go beyond the state of the art is under-substantiated as the proposal has limited new constructs, frameworks, and theorisation. The current scientific and practical foundations of digital citizenship education (DCE) and civic and citizenship education (CCED) are not adequately elaborated. The proposal also lacks substantiated research questions, as none are suggested, and research gaps remain inexplicit. - Soundness of the proposed methodology, including the underlying concepts, models, assumptions, inter-disciplinary approaches, appropriate consideration of the gender dimension in research and innovation content, and the quality of open science practices, including sharing and management of research outputs and engagement of citizens, civil society and end users where appropriate. The proposed methodology is generally sound and realistic. The core principles, appropriate models and coherent assumptions are the foundation of the proposed methodology and are comparative and interdisciplinary. However, some of the assumptions are weakly stated and no references or citations of prior studies are provided to substantiate the selection of the four conceptual models, for example, digital competence-based frameworks for citizens, democratic resilience theory, path dependency models, and cross-sector collaboration models. The conceptual digital citizenship education and digital resilience are not properly defined. The integration of gender dimensions across the components of the design and acknowledgement of the sensitivities and ethics while working with children are praise-worthy. The open science approach and youth and stakeholders involvement in co-creation are appropriate and aligned with the aims of the project. Criterion 2 - Impact Score: 4.00 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Credibility of the pathways to achieve the expected outcomes and impacts specified in the work programme, and the likely scale and significance of the contributions from the project. The proposal does not clearly present progression with a coherent and credible pathway from outputs through to broader impacts. The proposal also falls short of providing evidence of proactive strategies for uptake, particularly in translating awareness-raising efforts into actionable pathways for policymakers. The proposal's scale and significance is convincing, providing three-year post-project targets whose ambition is in line with the call. The proposal identifies relevant target groups and demonstrates quantifiable impacts across multiple domains, for example, scientific, economic, technological, societal and policy related institutions. The existing frameworks and methodological soundness are used to measure the impact. The convincing mitigation strategies are also provided for the identified potential barriers to impact. The barriers to pilot recruitment and engagement of disadvantaged groups are insufficiently addressed, leaving assumptions about inclusion and uptake untested. 101270899/DECIDE.EU-30/01/2026-08:42:54 2/4  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)1067408 - 30/01/2026 - Suitability and quality of the measures to maximise expected outcomes and impacts, as set out in the dissemination and exploitation plan, including communication activities. The proposal shows appropriate dissemination, exploitation and communication measures including regular roundtables, policy labs, structured dialogues, white papers and stakeholder dialogues, which can maximize the impact of the project outcomes. Target groups are identified for each measure and discussed properly. The strategy for the management of intellectual property, and its explicit consideration of the potential commercial use is properly outlined and convincing. However, due to the insufficient operational details, the proposal lacks measures to assess the proportionality and effectiveness of the project impact to the wider stakeholders. The activities lack clear timelines, KPIs, ownership and contextual specifics on how each measure will be implemented. These factors reduce the monitor-ability and credibility of the DEC strategy. Criterion 3 - Quality and efficiency of the implementation Score: 3.50 (Threshold: 3 / 5.00 , Weight: - ) The following aspects will be taken into account, to the extent that the proposed work corresponds to the description in the work programme: - Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, assessment of risks, and appropriateness of the effort assigned to work packages, and the resources overall. Overall, the work plan is coherent and of quality, including clear milestones and deliverables, enabling effective monitoring. The flow of the work packages is convincing with a consistent list of objectives and deliverables. The critical risks are appropriately identified for each work package and are realistic, with appropriate mitigation measures proposed. However, the project lacks coherence and verifiability of the work plan and reduces confidence in resource adequacy and delivery. The work plan omits task-level timings and partner roles, making it impossible to verify a fair partner-by-partner budget distribution. It is unclear how pilots will be delivered across multiple EU countries and how public authorities will be involved, given that only one public administration partner is included. Mainly, the budget shows an identical unit cost for all partners regardless of employer or staff category and this approach questions the cost credibility. The effort distribution among partners seems to be unbalanced. The personnel costs do not seem to be realistic. - Capacity and role of each participant, and the extent to which the consortium as a whole brings together the necessary expertise. The consortium consists of a broad mix of partners with geographical coverage who seem to complement each other, with expertise and experience in CCED, digital citizenship, media literacy, AI and ethics, youth work, and pedagogy that align well with project objectives. However, there is still a lack of clarity regarding interdisciplinary knowledge needed to address those key issues. It is unclear how the socio-cultural and historical path-dependency analysis claimed under Excellence can be achieved. The expertise in gender aspects, R&I is not sufficiently clear. The activities are not uniformly distributed, as some partners concentrate most activities and resources while other partners seem to be limited to facilitator/dissemination role, underutilizing expertise and weakening collaborative balance. Scope of the application Status: Yes Comments (in case the proposal is out of scope) Not provided Exceptional funding A third country participant/international organisation not listed in the General Annex to the Main Work Programme may exceptionally receive funding if their participation is essential for carrying out the project (for instance due to outstanding expertise, access to unique know-how, access to research infrastructure, access to particular geographical environments, possibility to involve key partners in emerging markets, access to data, etc.). (For more information, see the HE programme guide ) Please list the concerned applicants and requested grant amount and explain the reasons why. Based on the information provided, the following participants should receive exceptional funding: N/A Based on the information provided, the following participants should NOT receive exceptional funding: N/A Use of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) Status: No If YES, please state whether the use of hESC is, or is not, in your opinion, necessary to achieve the scientific objectives of the proposal and the reasons why. Alternatively, please state if it cannot be assessed whether the use of hESC is necessary or not, because of a lack of information. Not provided Use of human embryos 101270899/DECIDE.EU-30/01/2026-08:42:54 3/4  Associated with document Ref. Ares(2026)1067408 - 30/01/2026 Status: No If YES, please explain how the human embryos will be used in the project. Not provided Activities excluded from funding Status: No If YES, please explain. Not provided Exclusive focus on civil applications Status: Yes If NO, please explain. Not provided 101270899/DECIDE.EU-30/01/2026-08:42:54 4/4  Digitally sealed by the European Commission Date: 2026.01.30 09:10:24 CET This electronic receipt is a digitally signed version of the document submitted by your organisation. Both the content of the document and a set of metadata have been digitally sealed. This digital signature mechanism, using a public-private key pair mechanism, uniquely binds this eReceipt to the modules of the Funding & Tenders Portal of the European Commission, to the transaction for which it was generated and ensures its full integrity. Therefore a complete digitally signed trail of the transaction is available both for your organisation and for the issuer of the eReceipt. Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a break of the integrity of the electronic signature, which can be verified at any time by clicking on the eReceipt validation symbol. More info about eReceipts can be found in the FAQ page of the Funding & Tenders Portal. (https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/faq) Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111  5873115 428625 0 0 -3810 9724390 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL Ehitajate tee 5 19086 Tallinn Rg-kood 74000323 Tel 620 2002 E-post [email protected] www.taltech.ee 0 0 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL Ehitajate tee 5 19086 Tallinn Rg-kood 74000323 Tel 620 2002 E-post [email protected] www.taltech.ee -3810 428625 0 0 Sihtasutus Eesti Teadusagentuur Soola 8 0 5 . 0 2 .202 6 nr 11-10/48- 4 51004 Tartu Ettevalmistustoetuse taotlemine Käesolevaga taotleb Tallinna Tehnikaülikool ( reg nr 74000323, ak EE201010052037382001 ) ettevalmistustoetust järgmistele projekti de le : - Digital Well-Being & Achievement Impact – 360° – DWAI360 ( 101287347 , HORIZON-CL2-2025-01 ), vastutav täitja Janika Leoste , IT Kolledž ; - Enhancing Digital Governance and Data Protection through Interdisciplinary Academic Collaboration DATA4RIGHTS (101299876, HORIZON-MSCA-2025-SE-01), õiguse instituut ; - Digital Citizenship Education to Increase Youth Democratic Engagement and Support for Common European Values - DECIDE.EU ( 101270899 , HORIZON-CL2-2025-01 ), õiguse instituut . Lugupidamisega (allkirjastatud digitaalselt) Marika Lunden Teadusosakond Lisa: hindamisleht left 284480 Riina Vilgats 620 3536 [email protected] 0 0 Riina Vilgats 620 3536 [email protected]