The project aimed to enable young people from Germany, Hungary, Romania and Türkiye to practise meaningful participation and to build a lived sense of European citizenship. We delivered four youth-led transnational workshops and linked them to concrete local follow-up actions that tested democratic tools in EU. Rationale and needs Partners identified that many young people lacked accessible channels to be heard, safe spaces to practice deliberation, and practical know-how for turning ideas into small public-interest actions. The consortium therefore prioritised inclusion, intercultural dialogue and media/infodemic literacy as preconditions for participation. Objectives (SMART) aligned with EU Youth Goals and programme priorities O1 – Participation & agency: We involved 80 young people (18–30, including participants with fewer opportunities) in four Youth Participation Events and granted them agenda co-design, facilitation and task leadership roles. O2 – Democratic engagement: We implemented at least eight youth-led micro-actions (minimum two per event) that opened constructive dialogue with municipal youth services, schools and civil society, producing short “Youth Voices for European Citizenship” briefs per country. O3 – European identity and belonging: Pre/post instruments showed medium-size gains in knowledge of EU rights and institutions and in confidence to engage with EU opportunities. O4 – Key competences: Participants improved self-efficacy, communication, teamwork, conflict transformation and media/infodemic literacy, as evidenced by self-reports triangulated with facilitator rubrics. O5 – Inclusion & accessibility: We removed financial and practical barriers through tailored support plans (mentoring, travel and language support) and ensured meaningful participation of youth with fewer opportunities. O6 – Green & digital practices: The consortium reduced its footprint by bundling travel and prioritising rail where feasible, used digital-first materials, and embedded two virtual components around each event (preparation and post-action clinics). O7 – Recognition of learning: We documented learning with Youthpass and issued certificates with participant-authored statements linked to the Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. O8 – Quality & safety: A shared QA framework guided roles, partnership agreements, safeguarding and risk management; all mobile participants received pre-departure briefings on safety, inclusion, and green/digital conduct. O9 – Organisational capacity: The partners strengthened cooperation via common tools (communication channels, M&E templates, facilitation kits) and prepared follow-up concepts for continued collaboration. O10 – Dissemination & sustainability: We produced and shared a reusable “Participation Toolkit” (session plans, facilitation cards, templates), reached online and offline audiences in all four countries, and integrated selected methods into routine youth work. Target groups and logic of intervention Primary participants were young people aged 18–30 from diverse backgrounds (including migrants, rural youth and students at risk of disengagement). Secondary targets included youth workers and local decision-makers whose practices shape youth spaces. Activities combined experiential learning, peer facilitation and stakeholder dialogue, so that participants first practised skills in a protected setting and then applied them in their communities. Participation model and innovation We used alternative, smart forms of youth participation typical for KA154: participant-led agenda setting, rotating youth facilitation, deliberation simulations, rapid prototyping of micro-actions and feedback loops with community actors. Each event concluded with an action canvas that framed responsibilities, timelines and minimum resources for the subsequent local steps. Measurement framework We used pre/post questionnaires, self-efficacy scales, short media-literacy quizzes, reflective journals and facilitator rubrics. Indicators covered participation volumes (by gender, age, country and fewer-opportunities status), numbers and quality of youth-led actions, stakeholder engagement, learning gains, Youthpass issuance, green/digital practice adoption, dissemination reach and organisational cooperation outputs. Evidence consisted of signed participant lists, event programmes, session materials, Youthpass registries, records of stakeholder dialogues, links and analytics for online outputs, memoranda of understanding between partners, and structured partner debrief notes. European added value Transnational co-creation allowed youth teams to compare participation barriers across civic cultures and to adapt methods, strengthening a shared European civic vocabulary. The cross-border peer group, the rotation of hosting contexts and the joint toolkit increased transferability of the tested approaches and positioned young people as credible actors in local democratic conversations.