The FP10 Council position, agreed on 26 June 2026, gives member states a mandate to negotiate the successor to Horizon Europe with the European Parliament, but it deliberately leaves out the one number researchers want most: the budget. The partial position covers structure and rules, while money waits for the wider 2028 to 2034 multiannual financial framework.
What the FP10 Council position covers
The Council treats FP10 as the tenth EU framework programme and as a stand-alone instrument, closely linked to the European Competitiveness Fund. The Cyprus Presidency, whose Deputy Minister for Research, Innovation and Digital Policy Nicodemos Damianou presented the outcome, kept the Commission’s four-pillar design.
Pillar I is excellent science, which expands the European Research Council and reinforces the Joint Research Centre. Pillar II covers competitiveness and society through collaborative research. Pillar III is innovation, with a larger European Innovation Council able to back high-risk projects, including defence and dual-use start-ups. Pillar IV is the European Research Area, with a reformed widening component and support for research infrastructure.
Why the budget is missing
The Council describes the position as partial. Financial and horizontal issues, and the elements linked to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, remain open. The Commission proposed a substantial increase for the programme, but the final figure depends on the overall long-term budget deal.
That sequencing matters. Under the Council’s own timetable, an agreement on the multiannual financial framework by the end of 2026 would allow legislative acts to be adopted in 2027 and keep funding flowing from January 2028 without a gap. If the budget talks slip, the FP10 Council position could be settled in substance while the programme still has no money attached.
Excellence, widening and member-state influence
Two principles pull in different directions. The text preserves Horizon Europe’s self-standing, excellence-driven nature, so grants keep going to the best proposals wherever they come from. At the same time it sets out a progress-oriented widening approach for countries that lag in research and innovation, with transition countries designed to catch up and leave widening status over time.
The Council also asks for a clearer process for member-state involvement in priority setting, especially for European Partnerships, and stronger roles for national governments in shaping the programme. Researchers’ groups have long worried that more political steering could erode the bottom-up character of funding, so the FP10 Council position is likely to meet resistance on this point in Parliament.
Defence, dual use and research security
The text also addresses dual-use and defence-related innovation, with checks attached to European Innovation Council support, and adds provisions on research security. It adds a focus on early-career researchers, adjusts the governance of the European Research Council and pushes simplification through lump sums, simplified costs for Marie Sklodowska-Curie actions and lighter reporting.
Simplification may be the least glamorous part of the FP10 Council position, yet it is where applicants feel changes first. Fewer reporting obligations shorten the time between a good idea and a funded project.
What happens next
The Council mandate opens negotiations with Parliament, but no trilogue dates are set in the release. The main fault lines to watch are the degree of national influence over priorities, the balance between excellence and widening, and how defence-related innovation is ring-fenced from civilian research.
For universities and research organisations, the practical lesson is to treat the FP10 Council position as a design document rather than a funding promise. Applicants should plan around the four pillars and the simplification measures now, and watch the long-term budget talks for the figure that will decide how much of the design can be delivered.
