I came across the new Czech Technical University (CTU) in Prague Starting Grant 2026 today, and it looked like one of the more credible early-career principal investigator (PI) “launch your own group” schemes I’ve seen from a European university.
The basic offer is strong. The grant funds up to three years, with up to CZK 4,000,000 per year, which the call estimates at roughly 160,000 € per year. Over the full project, that is up to about 480,000 €. CTU also states that the inaugural 2026 call aims to fund up to ten new research groups across all research fields represented at the university. There is also a one-time relocation package of up to CZK 250,000 (around 10,000 €), plus explicit support for childcare or dependent-care costs. In the call text, dependent-care support is spelled out as reimbursed documented costs of formal childcare or dependent-care services required to enable project work, up to CZK 150,000 per project year. This is not European Research Council money, but it is absolutely enough to build a small team and produce real output.
What I like most is the structure. CTU does not ask you to pre-negotiate a host department deal before you even apply. Instead, proposals are evaluated and ranked first, and only after shortlisting do candidates go through host matching and implementation negotiations. That might sound like a detail, but it matters a lot. Anyone who has applied for early-career PI funding knows how much of the process can become informal politics and internal bargaining. This design pushes the competition back toward science and track record. In this scheme, host matching is explicitly a post-selection operational step and does not affect the scientific scoring or the panel’s ranking, and the final framework is then documented in a grant agreement between CTU, the host unit(s), and the PI.
In terms of where it sits relative to other European calls, I would place it between the big flagship programs and the fellowship-style routes. It is smaller and less globally prestigious than a European Research Council Starting Grant, but it is clearly designed to get you into that category within a few years. It is closer in spirit to the German Research Foundation Emmy Noether Programme, in the sense that it is about genuine independence and group building. And it is very different from the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, which are excellent for mobility and training but usually fund an individual researcher rather than a new group. CTU is also unusually explicit about the intended trajectory: funded PIs are expected to treat the project as a springboard and prepare an ERC Starting or Consolidator Grant (or equivalent) within one year after the CTU Starting Grant ends.
The eligibility rules are also what you would expect for a “starting PI” scheme: generally within eight years after the PhD, with extensions for parental leave and other documented career breaks, and with a requirement for substantial international experience. The call is also explicit about career-path flexibility, including the possibility of reduced FTE by agreement in justified cases (for example caring responsibilities), and the evaluation guidance stresses that productivity should be interpreted relative to effective research time, including part-time appointments and documented breaks.
One practical thing that makes the program feel more serious than many “internal university grants” is that the timeline is clearly defined and fast. The call opened on 02 February 2026, with a submission deadline of 30 March 2026 (23:59 CET). CTU plans to announce shortlist decisions by 14 April 2026, run panel interviews in the week of 11–15 May 2026, and announce results by 29 May 2026, with post-selection negotiations concluded by 30 June 2026. Projects then start within a flexible 12-month window after signing, which is a sensible design for relocation, visas, and hiring.
Overall, this looks like CTU is making a real attempt to create an institutional on-ramp into independent PI status, with enough funding to matter and a process that tries to be fair to outsiders. If you are early-career, internationally mobile, and thinking seriously about building a lab in Prague, this is the kind of call worth watching.
Later edit (extra details from the official CTU documents):
After publishing the post, I went through the PDFs in the CTU “DOWNLOADS” section and pulled out a few practical details that are easy to miss but matter a lot in practice:
1) Two-phase design is real (and proposals must not include host negotiations). CTU explicitly separates (i) scientific ranking from (ii) post-selection host matching and negotiations. In other words, you are not expected to arrive with a pre-negotiated host-unit deal, and the call explicitly discourages including negotiated host commitments or proposed co-funding ratios in the proposal package (Call text (2026); Instructions for applicants; Principles of the ČVUT Starting Grant Competition).
2) Evaluation criteria and weights are fixed and transparent. The panel scores three criteria with indicative weights: A: Project quality/impact/originality (40%), B: PI excellence/independence/leadership potential (40%), and C: Fit with CTU and feasibility of establishing a research group (20%). The call also notes that the overall assessment is not a mechanical average (Call text (2026)).
3) Shortlisted interviews have a strict format. The interview structure is 5 minutes presentation + 20 minutes Q&A, followed by closed panel deliberation (Call text (2026); Evaluation Procedure Guidelines).
4) The proposal is heavily template-driven, with strict page limits. CTU provides mandatory templates. The Scientific Project Description is capped at 6 pages, with references allowed as up to 2 extra pages (references only). The CV/Track record is capped at 4 pages (Scientific project description; CV/Track record).
5) Submission package includes two recommendation letters uploaded directly by referees. The application uses a split workflow where referees upload letters themselves (not through the applicant). You need to allow time for the referees to submit before the deadline (Call text (2026); Instructions for applicants; Recommendation letter guidelines; Recommendation letter template).
6) Budget mechanics: overhead cap and what counts toward the base. The overhead rule is explicit: overheads are up to 20% of eligible direct costs, and the overhead base excludes investments. The budget guidance and calculator emphasize submitting an indicative budget for Years 1–3 (the optional +1 year extension is handled later) (Principles of the ČVUT Starting Grant Competition; Budget information package and template).
7) A small but important “seriousness signal”: panel members can’t outsource reading your proposal. In the evaluation guidance, reviewers are explicitly prohibited from uploading proposal text into external services (including generative AI tools). That effectively means your application needs to be self-contained and clear; you shouldn’t assume evaluators will “process” or rewrite your text with external tools (Evaluation Procedure Guidelines).
In practice, the strict templates/page limits and the 5-minute interview put a premium on clarity, so don’t make the classic mistake of writing it like an ERC proposal and assuming the structure will carry you.
Neueste Kommentare