Questions unanswered: follow-up on the 2025 Creative Europe Cooperation Call
Creative Europe is one of the EU’s most successful yet most underfunded programmes. The 2025 Culture Strand cooperation call CREA-CULT-2025-COOP had a success rate of just 5–6%. Beyond scarce funding, its technical setup of the call created a loophole that disqualified numerous organisations and proposals through, we believe, no fault of their own. As the sector rallies for a larger culture budget in the next EU budget 2028–2034, Culture Action Europe is convinced it is crucial to address this issue now to strengthen the programme for the future. Below, we answer frequently asked questions to explain what happened, why it matters, and how we can work together to resolve the problem constructively.
- What happened?
In 2025, Creative Europe launched a new European cooperation projects call. This is one of its flagship actions, accounting for more than half of the Culture strand budget. Typical grants range from several hundred thousand euros to over €1 million for some large-scale cooperation projects.
One of the main novelties of the 2025 call was the introduction of a participation cap: an organisation could be part of no more than three project proposals. Culture Action Europe welcomed this cap because it would help diversify the pool of applicants.
Many organisations worked for months and, to the best of their knowledge, submitted no more than three proposals. When the CREA-CULT-2025-COOP results were published on 12 November, some discovered that their applications had been downgraded because other applicants had listed them as associated partners via the Funding & Tenders Portal without their knowledge, consent or any notification. Those unsolicited additions pushed the organisations over the cap and made them ineligible.
Culture Action Europe has collected evidence of more than 30 proposals affected and have heard that the total count could be closer to 70, affecting hundreds of organisations that lost their chance for fair competition.
- ‘But shouldn’t you have checked how many applications you were part of?’
Indeed, the call provisions specified that ‘project coordinators and partners are responsible for ensuring that no consortium member participates in more than three applications.’
Many organisations acted in good faith to respect this rule and, to the best of their knowledge, believed they were part of a maximum of three applications based on their communication with partners. However, they were never informed that other applicants had added them to additional proposals, nor did they receive any explicit notification.
There are many possible reasons why an organisation was added as an associated partner to an application without its explicit knowledge or consent: from simple mistakes or miscommunication to, in some cases, malicious intent. Regardless of the cause, Culture Action Europe believes there is a flaw in a system that allows any party to use an organisation’s identification code without robust consent and notification, and then penalises said organisation for the consequences. The current technical setup enables potential misuse or abuse and is difficult to reconcile with sound financial management.
The burden of meeting the cap placed on applicants by the call provisions was therefore not matched by the technical means required to fulfil that responsibility.
For these reasons, we are concerned that technical features of the call may have created loopholes and affected fair competition among applicants in a way that could be inconsistent with the principles of good administration.
- Does this problem exist in other programmes?
Not really. For example, Erasmus+ already mitigates these risks by requiring formal consent before submission, which raises the question of why similar measures were not adopted in the design of the CREA-CULT-2025-COOP call.
In addition, one potential solution already exists within this call: partners receive notifications through the Funding & Tenders Portal (while associated partners do not). It is unclear why this notification practice was not extended to associated partners as well.
Introducing safeguards to prevent this loophole would have streamlined the application process, made it more reliable and credible, and reduced the substantial resources now required for investigations into redress cases and potential re-evaluation.
- How did Culture Action Europe react to the situation and what is the Commission saying?
On 17 November 2025, after collecting evidence, Culture Action Europe sent a letter to the Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture of the European Commission (DG EAC) and to the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), which implements the call. In the letter, we outlined our position and put forward two main demands:
- Re-evaluate all proposals under the CREA-CULT-2025-COOP call that were downgraded or rejected due to organisations appearing in more than three applications without their prior consent or proper notification to the PIC holder.
- Introduce safeguards for future calls, including:
-
- requiring explicit partner consent (e.g. a signed letter of intent or digital approval) before any organisation can be added to an application;
-
- automatic notification to PIC holders whenever their organisation is added to a proposal, with mandatory confirmation before submission.
On 25 November, we received a response from EACEA. It underlined the importance of the cap, placed the responsibility on applicants to ensure compliance, and invited those who believe their organisation was added without their consent or knowledge to file a redress request. The Agency also took note of the issue concerning the absence of automatic notification.
While we appreciated the response, in our view, it did not entirely reflect the extent to which these issues go beyond individual cases and indicate a broader problem with the technical implementation of the call.
As we believed that our concerns were not fully addressed in EACEA’s response, Culture Action Europe followed up with another letter on 8 December, reiterating our position and requests.
- What should I do now if I am one of the affected organisations?
If you have not done so already, we strongly encourage you to submit a formal redress request by the deadline of Sunday, 14 December 2025. The exact steps to follow are outlined in the official rejection notification you received from EACEA. Please note that the Project Coordinator of your project(s) is the only entity authorised to submit the official request.
We recognise that this is far from ideal and creates an additional structural complication: in cases where an organisation was added to proposals without its knowledge or consent, the entity formally empowered to lodge a complaint is precisely the one that initiated the contested entry. Culture Action Europe raised this concern in our second letter to EACEA.
In preparing your redress request, we recommend using the full 7,000 characters available to describe your situation in as much detail as possible. Your explanation will directly inform the examination of your case. You may outline the procedural error of being added to additional applications without PIC-holder consent or notification.
The redress review is expected to take three to four months. As far as we understand, it will be conducted by a separate unit within EACEA and will include an investigation into cases where an organisation claims it was added without its knowledge or consent, including an examination of communications among the parties.
This investigation does not automatically lead to re-evaluation. If grounds are identified, EACEA may order a re-evaluation; otherwise, the initial decision may remain unchanged. The Agency also noted in its response that ‘the intentional inclusion of an organisation without consent is considered misrepresentation of information within the meaning of the EU Financial Regulation.’
At the same time, Culture Action Europe continues to advocate for the re-evaluation of all affected proposals. We believe this situation must be addressed from a broader, systemic perspective, as it appears linked to the technical implementation of the call, an issue that requires attention beyond individual redress cases.
- I received grant funding under the CREA-CULT-2025-COOP call. Does re-evaluation put my grant at risk?
We believe not, and this is not what Culture Action Europe is calling for. We warmly congratulate all projects that received funding.
Our call for re-evaluation applies only to the affected projects that were downgraded due to partners appearing in more than three applications, not to the entire call. Re-evaluation does not guarantee funding, but if some re-evaluated proposals are successful, we believe they should be funded in addition to the projects that have already been awarded. The Commission has the means to make this possible.
- Why should I care? This problem doesn’t affect me.
This situation matters for several reasons.
First of all, it’s a matter of principle, fairness, and the right to good administration. Cultural organisations, already operating under precarious conditions, spent significant resources on applications, only to be denied a full evaluation.
Secondly, the issue harms the sector as a whole. A single organisation, unknowingly added beyond the cap due to a technical loophole, ended up dragging down entire consortia, which could include three to ten partners or more. At a time when unity in the cultural sector is essential, such situations fuel mistrust and finger-pointing rather than encourage collaboration.
Thirdly, this incident exposes unequal treatment between partners and associated partners. By definition, associated partners do not receive grant money; they contribute to the project pro bono. Yet they are still counted within the cap, are not notified if someone adds them to a proposal, and have limited access rights on the Funding & Tenders Portals. This also suggests considering an exemption from the three-application cap for associated partners, as in Erasmus+.
Regardless of the number of affected organisations, the call exposed several structural issues: insufficient funding, unequal treatment, and technical loopholes in the administration of the call.
It is important to address these issues now, as the future of Creative Europe is being decided. We recognise that the available funding is not enough to support all high-quality applications. This provides all the more reason for the EU culture budget to be increased and for the calls to be implemented in full respect of the budgetary principles of the Financial Regulation, particularly sound financial management, and in a way that duly acknowledges the substantial work invested by applicants.
Culture Action Europe has long been a fierce advocate for robust culture funding in the EU, most recently through our ongoing Ask, Pay, Trust campaign. We therefore feel obliged to reflect on the programme, its strengths and weaknesses, and address them with the sole intention of strengthening Creative Europe and its successors.
Image credit: Rena