HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
22.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
75/1
II
(Non-legislative acts)
DECISIONS
COMMISSION DECISION
of 28 February 2011
amending Decision C(2008) 4617 related to the rules for proposals submission, evaluation, selection
and award procedures for indirect actions under the Seventh Framework Programme of the
European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities
(2007-2013) and under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy
Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007-2011)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2011/161/EU, Euratom)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
(2) The
purpose
of
the
Rules
is
to
establish
a
framework
for
the handling of proposals in the Seventh Framework
Programme (EC and Euratom). They should ensure a
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
coherent approach across all the specific Programmes
Union,
(with the exception of IDEAS), while allowing a
measure of flexibility where necessary.
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic
Energy Community,
(3) The
Rules
also
specify
the
role
and
obligations
of
the
independent experts who, in accordance with Regulations
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of the
(EC) No 1906/2006 and (Euratom) No 1908/2006, will
European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December
assist the Commission in the evaluation of proposals for
2006 laying down the rules for the participation of under
indirect actions, including the model appointment letter
takings, research centres and universities in actions under the
which will be concluded with them.
Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of
research results (2007-2013) ( 1 ), and in particular Article 16(3)
thereof,
(4) These
rules
were
duly
adopted
by
the
Commission
on
30 March 2007 (COM(2007) 1390), and revised, under a
Having regard to Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1908/2006
delegation procedure, on 13 February 2008 (DL(2008)
of 19 December 2006 laying down the rules for the partici
314), and again on 21 August 2008 (C(2008) 4617). It
pation of undertakings, research centres and universities in
is now necessary to introduce certain further modifi
actions under the Seventh Framework Programme of the
cations, to clarify a number of points based on
European Atomic Energy Community and for the dissemination
experience to date. At the same time, the text is
of research results (2007 to 2011) ( 2 ), and in particular
brought in line with the Treaty on the Functioning of
Article 15(3) thereof,
the European Union,
Whereas:
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
(1) The Commission has drawn up rules governing the
procedure for the submission of proposals, as well as
related evaluation, selection and award procedures (‘the
Rules’).
Article 1
( 1 ) OJ L 391, 30.12.2006, p. 1.
The Annex to Decision C(2008) 4617 is replaced by the Annex
( 2 ) OJ L 400, 30.12.2006, p. 1.
to this Decision.

---

L 75/2
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
22.3.2011
Article 2
The Rules for the submission of proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures of
indirect actions under the Cooperation, Capacities, People and Euratom specific programmes of the Seventh
Framework Programme (2007-2013) shall apply to all calls for proposals published from the date of entry
into force of this Decision.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Union.
Done at Brussels, 28 February 2011.
For the Commission
The President
José Manuel BARROSO

---

EN
22.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
75/3
ANNEX
‘ANNEX
RULES FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS, AND THE RELATED EVALUATION, SELECTION AND AWARD
PROCEDURES
(Version 4)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Context and scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
1.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
2.
Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
2.1. Calls for proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
2.2. Pre-proposal checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
2.3. Submission of proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
2.4. Reception by the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
2.5. Eligibility check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
2.6. Eligibility review committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
3.
Evaluation of proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
3.1. Role of experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
3.2. Appointment of experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
3.3. Terms of appointment, code of conduct and conflict of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
3.4. Independent observers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Evaluation criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6. Proposal scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.7. Thresholds and weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.8. Detailed description of proposal evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.9. Feedback to applicants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.
Finalisation of the evaluation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. Commission ranked list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2. Commission reserve list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3. Commission rejection decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.
Negotiation and award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1. Negotiation of proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2. Award of grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3. Assistance, enquiries and redress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.4. Reporting on the outcome of calls for proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Annex A — Ethical review procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Annex B — Handling security-sensitive RTD actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Annex C — Two-stage proposal submission and evaluation procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Annex D — Continuous submission schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

---

L 75/4
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
22.3.2011
Annex E — Procedures for proposal submission on paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Annex F — Appointment letter for independent experts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Annex G — Evaluation of proposals submitted to the “People” specific programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
CONTEXT AND SCOPE
This document establishes the Commission ( 1 ) rules for the proposals submission, and the related evaluation, selection and
award procedures (hereafter “the Rules”), in relation to the Seventh Framework Programme of the European
Community ( 2 ) for research, technological development and demonstration activities and the Seventh Framework
Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities ( 3 )
(hereafter “FP7”), as required by their respective rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and
universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programmes and for the dissemination of research results ( 4 )
(hereafter “EC Rules for Participation” and “Euratom Rules for Participation”). It describes the basic procedures that the
Commission will follow in accordance with the Rules for Participation, the Financial Regulation applicable to the general
budget of the European Communities ( 5 ) (hereafter “Financial Regulation”), and its Rules of Procedure ( 6 ).
These Rules do not apply to (a) public procurement procedures ( 7 ); (b) a joint undertaking or any other structure set up
pursuant to Article 187 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), or pursuant to Article 185 of
the TFEU or Article 45 of the Euratom Treaty; (c) direct actions undertaken by the Joint Research Centre of the European
Commission; and (d) the specific programme “Ideas”.
1. INTRODUCTION
Applications for financial support under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) are generally made in the form of
proposals submitted to the Commission. Proposals set out details of planned work, who will carry them out, and how
much they will cost.
The Commission evaluates proposals in order to identify those whose quality is sufficiently high for possible funding. The
Commission shall appoint independent experts (hereafter “experts”) to assist with the evaluation of proposals.
The Commission enters into a negotiation with the coordinators of proposals that successfully pass the evaluation stage,
and for which there is budget available.
If negotiations are successfully concluded, the project is selected and a grant agreement providing for a European Union
or Euratom financial contribution is established with the applicants.
These rules rest on a number of well-established principles:
(i) Excellence: Projects selected for funding must demonstrate a high quality in the context of the topics and criteria set
out in the calls ( 8 ).
(ii) Transparency: Funding decisions must be based on clearly described rules and procedures, and applicants should
receive adequate feedback on the outcome of the evaluation of their proposals.
(iii) Fairness and impartiality: All proposals submitted to a call are treated equally. They are evaluated impartially on their
merits, irrespective of their origin or the identity of the applicants.
( 1 ) In general, the terms “Commission” or “European Commission” in this document refer to the institution as a whole. When it is obvious
from the context, the terms refer to the departments of the Commission responsible for the research programmes. It may also be
deemed to refer to the Research Executive Agency, for those areas where the Commission has delegated certain operational tasks.
( 2 ) OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p. 1.
( 3 ) OJ L 400, 30.12.2006, p. 60.
( 4 ) OJ L 391, 30.12.2006, p. 1, Article 16(3), and OJ L 400, 30.12.2006, p. 1, Article 15(3).
( 5 ) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.
( 6 ) Rules of Procedure of the Commission (OJ L 308, 8.12.2000, p. 26).
( 7 ) The Commission shall not issue calls for proposals for coordination and support actions consisting of a purchase of goods or services
subject to the rules on public procurement set out in the Financial Regulation.
( 8 ) Based on the criteria set out in the rules for participation (S/T excellence; relevance; impact; implementation)

---

EN
22.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
75/5
(iv) Confidentiality: All proposals and related data, knowledge and documents communicated to the Commission are
treated in confidence ( 1 )
(v) Efficiency and speed: Evaluation, award and grant preparation should be as rapid as possible, commensurate with
maintaining the quality of the evaluation, and respecting the legal framework.
(vi) Ethical and security considerations: Any proposal which contravenes fundamental ethical principles ( 2 ), or which fails
to comply with the relevant security procedures ( 3 ) may be excluded at any time from the process of evaluation,
selection and award (see Annexes A and B).
The work programmes implementing the specific programmes may set out specific evaluation criteria or provide further
details on the application of the evaluation criteria, which will be reflected in the call for proposals.
The call and associated Guide for Applicants may spell out in more detail the way in which these rules and procedures
will be implemented and, where relevant, which options are to be followed.
The various steps involved in the proposal, submission, evaluation and selection procedures are summarised in the
following diagram:
( 1 ) In this context, the term “confidentiality” should not be taken as equating to the security classification “EU CONFIDENTIAL”. The
procedures related to “EU CONFIDENTIAL” documents apply only to information and material the unauthorised disclosure of which
would harm the essential interests of the EU of one of its Member States (Commission provisions on security (Commission Decision
2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending its internal rules of procedure (OJ L 317, 3.12.2001, p. 1))).
( 2 ) Article 6 of the EC FP7 decision, Article 5 of the Euratom FP7 decision, Article 15(2) of the EC Rules for Participation, and
Article 14(2) of the equivalent Euratom Rules for Participation.
( 3 ) Article 15(2) of the EC Rules for Participation and Article 16(2) of the equivalent Euratom Rules for Participation.

---

L 75/6
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
22.3.2011
2. SUBMISSION
2.1. Calls for proposals
Proposals are submitted in response to calls for proposals (“calls”) ( 1 ). The content and timing of calls are set out in the
work programmes. Notifications of calls for proposals are published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The “call
texts” are published on Commission website(s), and include references to the work programme topics against which
proposals are invited, indicative call budgets, available funding schemes, deadlines for submission, and links to the
Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS) (see section 2.3). This website provides access to all the necessary
information for those wishing to apply to calls. In particular, one or more guides for applicants are produced for
every call. These guides explain the submission process, and how the applicants can seek assistance or information on
any matter related to a call. Contact details are provided for National Contact Points, and the Commission’s FP7 Enquiry
service. A dedicated help desk is provided for issues related to the EPSS.
Calls are considered “open” until the specified deadline.
Depending on the objectives of the call, the work programme and call may make a distinction between different types of
collaborative project, different forms of the scheme “Research for the support of specific groups”, and between types of
coordination and support actions.
A call will also specify whether a single or two-stage submission and evaluation procedure is to be followed. For the latter
case, applicants first submit reduced or outline proposals. Only those whose proposals were evaluated positively at the
first stage are invited to submit complete proposals in a second stage ( 2 ) (see Annex C for details of this procedure).
The responsible authorising officer by sub delegation appoints a “call coordinator” for every call. This person acts as a
contact point for practical questions associated with the call, and ensures the overall planning and organisation of the
proposal reception and evaluation process.
In addition, one or more Commission officials shall be nominated, who will be responsible for giving directions on how
to deal with any sensitive questions that may arise during the course of the submission and evaluation process, including
those related to possible conflicts of interest (see section 3.3).
2.2. Pre-proposal checks
When warranted by the nature of a particular call, an informal advisory pre-proposal check service may be offered by the
Commission. The purpose is to advise potential applicants on whether proposals appear to be eligible and within the
scope of the call. If applicable, details of the procedure for pre-proposal checks will be set out in the relevant Guide for
Applicants.
2.3. Submission of proposals
Proposals are submitted electronically ( 3 ) via the web-based Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS).
Among the applicants in a proposal consortium, only the proposal coordinator (identified by user id and password) is
authorised to submit a proposal.
The preparation and uploading of all the proposal data, and the applicants’ agreement to the conditions of use of the
system and of the evaluation must take place prior to the attempt to submit the proposal.
( 1 ) With the possible exception referred to in Article 14 of the EC Rules for Participation and, Article 13 of the equivalent Rules for
Participation for:
(a) coordination and support actions to be carried out by legal entities identified in the specific programmes or in the work
programmes when the specific programme permits the work programmes to identify beneficiaries, in accordance with the
Implementing Rules;
(b) coordination and support actions consisting of a purchase of goods or services subject to the rules on public procurement set out
in the Financial Regulation;
(c) coordination and support actions relating to the appointment of independent experts;
(d) other actions, where so provided by the Financial Regulation or the Implementing Rules.
( 2 ) Article 16(2) of the EC Rules for participation and, Article 15(2) of the equivalent Euratom Rules for Participation: A two-stage
submission and evaluation procedure can be a useful option when a call might be expected to attract a disproportionately high number
of proposals in relation to the budget available. Such oversubscription may be associated with calls of a “bottom up” nature, where the
work programme gives applicants considerable freedom to choose topics themselves.
( 3 ) There may be exceptional circumstances when proposals may be submitted on paper. Any such possibility will be specified in the call
text and in the guide for applicants. Rules for paper submissions are described in Annex E.

---

EN
22.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
75/7
The EPSS will carry out a number of basic verification checks, including that of completeness of the proposal, internal
data consistency, absence of virus infection and conformity to the file types and size limitations which are specified. Only
upon completion of these checks, which do not replace the formal eligibility checks described in section 2.5, will the
EPSS allow the applicant to submit. Submission is deemed to occur at the moment when the proposal coordinator
initiates the final submission process, as indicated by the EPSS, and not at any point prior to this.
The proposals submitted via the EPSS are entered into databases after the call closure. The Commission has no access to
the proposal until the call deadline has passed (or until after the interim cut-off date, in the case of continuous submission
schemes, as described in Annex D).
Versions of proposals sent on paper (except following the procedure and in the cases described in Annex E), removable
electronic storage medium (e.g. CD-ROM, diskette), by e-mail or by fax will not be regarded as having been received by
the Commission.
A procedure for the withdrawal of a proposal by its coordinator is given in the guide for applicants. A withdrawn
proposal will not subsequently be considered by the Commission.
If more than one copy of the same proposal is received before the call deadline, only the most recent version is
considered for checking eligibility and possible evaluation.
Proposals are archived under secure conditions at all times. After completion of the evaluation and any subsequent
negotiation, all copies are destroyed other than those required for archiving and/or auditing purposes.
2.4. Reception by the Commission
The date and time of receipt of the last version of submitted proposals are recorded. After the call closure (or interim cut-
off date in the case of continuous submission schemes), an acknowledgement of receipt is sent to the proposal coor
dinator by e-mail containing:
— proposal title, acronym and unique proposal identifier (proposal number),
— name of the programme and/or activity/research area and call identifier to which the proposal was addressed,
— date and time of receipt (which is set to the time of the call deadline for proposals submitted electronically).
There is normally no further contact between the Commission and applicants on their proposal until after completion of
the evaluation, except for proposals which are subject to hearings (see section 3.8). The Commission may, however,
contact an applicant (usually through the coordinator) in order to clarify matters such as eligibility (see section 2.5).
2.5. Eligibility check
Proposals must fulfil all of the eligibility criteria if they are to be retained for evaluation. These criteria are rigorously
applied. In the case of two-stage proposal submission, each stage is subject to an eligibility check. The following eligibility
criteria apply to all proposals submitted under a call ( 1 ):
— receipt of proposal by the Commission before the deadline date and time established in the call, if applicable,
— minimum conditions (such as number of participants), as referred to in the call for proposals,
— completeness of the proposal, i.e. the presence of all requested administrative forms and the proposal description (NB:
the completeness of the information contained in the proposal will be for the experts to evaluate; the eligibility checks
only apply to the presence of the appropriate parts of the proposal),
— scope of the call: the content of the proposal must relate to the topic(s) and funding scheme(s) set out in that part of
the work programme open in the call. A proposal will only be deemed ineligible on grounds of “scope” in clear-cut
cases.
( 1 ) These criteria may be complemented by additional eligibility criteria provided for in the specific programme decision and/or the work
programme.

---

L 75/8
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
22.3.2011
If it becomes clear before, during or after the evaluation phase that one or more of the eligibility criteria have not been
fulfilled, the proposal is declared ineligible by the Commission, and is withdrawn from any further examination. Where
there is a doubt on the eligibility of a proposal, the Commission reserves the right to proceed with the evaluation,
pending a final decision on eligibility. The fact that a proposal is evaluated in such circumstances does not constitute
proof of its eligibility.
2.6. Eligibility review committee
If the question of eligibility is not clear-cut and a more comprehensive review of the case is deemed necessary, the call
coordinator may convene an internal eligibility review committee.
The committee’s role is to ensure a coherent legal interpretation of such cases and equal treatment of applicants.
This committee, composed of Commission staff having the requisite expertise in legal matters, S & T content, and/or
information systems, is chaired by the call coordinator. It examines the proposal and, if necessary, the circumstances
surrounding its submission; and provides specialist advice to support the decision on whether to allow a proposal to be
evaluated, or on whether or not to reject it on eligibility grounds. The committee may decide to contact the applicant in
order to clarify a particular issue.
3. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
3.1. Role of experts
The Commission evaluates proposals with the assistance of independent ( 1 ) experts to ensure that only those of the
highest quality are selected for funding. Because of the breadth and diversity of research domains covered by the
framework programmes, these experts are external to the Commission.
Experts may be invited to carry out the evaluation fully or partially at their home or place of work (“remote evaluation”),
or on Commission premises.
Occasionally, when relevant specialised knowledge is held in-house, Commission staff may work as experts alongside
external experts. Any such internal experts will work in addition to the minimum number required for the call (see
section 3.8(b)) ( 2 ).
The sole exception to the use of experts is in the case of coordination and support actions referred to in Article 14 of the
EC Rules for Participation, and Article 13 of the equivalent Euratom Rules for Participation, where independent experts
are only appointed if the Commission deems it appropriate ( 3 ).
3.2. Appointment of experts
Experts are required to have skills and knowledge appropriate to the areas of activity in which they are asked to assist.
They must also have a high level of professional experience in the public or private sector in one or more of the
following areas or activities: research in the relevant scientific and technological fields; administration, management or
evaluation of projects; use of the results of research and technological development projects; technology transfer and
innovation; international cooperation in science and technology; development of human resources. Experts may be
citizens of countries other than the Member States or countries associated to the framework programmes.
The Commission establishes a database of experts containing the details of suitable candidates on the basis of calls for
applications published in the Official Journal of the European Union. One call will be addressed to individuals and another to
relevant organisations such as national research agencies, research institutions and enterprises.
The Commission may at any time include in the database, if appropriate, any individual with the appropriate skills from
outside the lists obtained through the above-mentioned calls. Experts in the database may be invited to assist the
Commission in relation to activities other than the evaluation of research proposals, if they have indicated their will
ingness to be considered for such tasks. The database may be made available, on request, to research funding bodies with
( 1 ) An independent expert is an expert who is working in a personal capacity and in performing the work, does not represent any
organisation.
( 2 ) Staff from relevant specialised EU agencies are regarded as external experts for the purposes of satisfying the minimum number.
( 3 ) Article 17(1) of the EC Rules for Participation, and Article 16.1 of the equivalent Euratom Rules for Participation.

---

EN
22.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union
L
75/9
a public service mission, in the Member States and countries associated to the framework programmes, and to other
structures implementing EU research activities, created in line with the provisions of the Treaty. Decisions on granting
such access will be made by the Director-General for DG Research and Innovation or by his/her representative(s). The
database may also be used by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre for the selection of experts in support of research
activities carried out as direct actions ( 1 ).
To evaluate the proposals submitted in response to a call, the Commission draws up a list of appropriate experts
(including, if necessary, a reserve list). The lists are drawn up primarily using the selection criteria:
— a high level of expertise,
— an appropriate range of competencies.
Providing the above conditions can be satisfied, other criteria are also taken into consideration:
— an appropriate balance between academic and industrial expertise and users,
— a reasonable gender balance ( 2 ),
— a reasonable distribution of geographical origins ( 3 ),
— regular rotation of experts ( 4 ).
In constituting the lists of experts, the Commission also takes account, as necessary, of their abilities to appreciate the
industrial and/or societal dimension, and policy relevance, of the topics covered by the call. Experts must also have the
appropriate language skills required for the proposals to be evaluated.
In cases where experts will have to deal with classified information, the appropriate security clearance shall be required
before appointment ( 5 ).
The list of experts to be used for evaluation sessions is decided by the relevant authorising officer by sub delegation or
duly appointed delegates. The names of the experts assigned to individual proposals are not made public. However, once
a year, the Commission publishes on the Internet the list of experts used for the framework programmes and in each
specific programme.
3.3. Terms of appointment, Code of conduct and Conflict of interest
The Commission shall conclude an “appointment letter” with each expert, based on the model given in Annex F.
The appointment letter binds the expert to a code of conduct, establishes the essential provisions regarding confidentiality,
and, specifies in particular, the description of work, the conditions of payment, and reimbursement of expenses (see
Annex F).
When appointing experts, the Commission ( 6 ) must take all necessary steps to ensure that they are not faced with a
conflict of interest in relation to the proposals on which they are required to give an opinion. To this end, experts are
required to sign a declaration that no such conflict of interest exists (see Annex F) at the time of their appointment and
that they undertake to inform the Commission of both the existence and its nature should one arise in the course of their
duties. When so informed, the Commission takes all necessary actions to remove the conflict of interest. In addition, all
experts are required to confirm that they have no conflict of interest for each proposal that they are asked to examine at
the moment of the evaluation.
The declaration makes a distinction between “disqualifying” and “potential” conflicts of interest.
( 1 ) Pursuant to Article 27 of the EC Rules for Participation, and Article 26 of the equivalent Euratom Rules for Participation, this database
will also be used for the monitoring and evaluation of programmes and indirect actions.
( 2 ) The European Union pursue an equal opportunities policy and aims in particular at achieving in the medium term at least 40 % of
members of each sex in each expert group and committee (Commission Decision 2000/407/EC of 19 June 2000 relating to gender
balance within the committees and expert groups established by it).
( 3 ) In the case of calls relating to specific international cooperation activities (SICA), a significant number of experts who are citizens of the
international cooperation partner countries will be included.
( 4 ) In general, the Commission will ensure that at least a quarter of the experts used by an activity/research area will be replaced each
calendar year.
( 5 ) Article 17(2) of the EC Rules for Participation, and Article 16(2) of the equivalent Euratom Rules for Participation.
( 6 ) Article 17(3) and (4) of the EC Rules for Participation, and Article 16(3) and (4) of the equivalent Euratom Rules for Participation.

---

L 75/10
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
22.3.2011
When a disqualifying conflict of interest is reported by the expert or established by the Commission on the basis of any
available source of information, the expert shall not evaluate the proposal concerned (consensus group), nor take part in
any panel review (including possible hearings) where the proposal is under consideration ( 1 ).
Experts who are employed by one of the applicant organisations in a proposal are normally considered as facing a
“disqualifying” conflict of interest. However, when justified by the requirement to appoint the best available experts and
by the limited size of the pool of qualified experts, the Commission may decide to invite such experts to take part in the
panel review session, if the expert works in a different department/laboratory/institute from the one where the work is to
be carried out, and if the constituent bodies operate with a high degree of autonomy. In this case, the expert shall abstain
from the discussion (or electronic forum) if the panel discusses in detail the proposal involving the organisation
concerned. Such experts will not take part in any hearings, if the proposal concerned reaches the hearing stage.
In exceptional duly justified cases, experts in the circumstances described above may also participate in the consensus
group for the proposal in question. The Commission will inform the other experts in the group of the affiliation of the
expert concerned.
When a potential conflict of interest is reported by the expert or brought to the attention of the Commission by any
means, the Commission will consider the circumstances of the case and will decide, on the basis of the objective elements
of information at its disposal, on the existence of an effective conflict of interest ( 2 ). If such an effective conflict is
established, the expert will be excluded in the same manner as for a disqualifying conflict. In other cases, depending on
the specific circumstances of the case and taking due account of the associated risks, the Commission may decide to allow
the expert to evaluate. The expert must sign a declaration confirming that they will act in an impartial manner.
The Commission may take any appropriate measures to prevent a conflict of interest. The role of the expert may be
restricted to the panel review. In this case, the expert shall leave the room (or electronic forum) if the panel discusses the
individual case of the proposal where any conflict exists.
If a hitherto unsuspected conflict becomes apparent during the course of the evaluation, the expert must announce the
fact immediately to a Commission official. If the conflict is found to be a disqualifying one, the expert must abstain from
further evaluation involving the proposal concerned. Any comments and scores made earlier by that expert for the
proposal concerned will be discounted. If necessary, the expert will be replaced.
If an expert knowingly conceals a disqualifying or potential conflict of interest, and this is discovered during the
evaluation, the expert will be immediately excluded, and the sanctions indicated in the appointment letter and/or in
the Financial Regulation and its implementing rules will apply. Any consensus group in which he or she has participated
will be declared null and void, and the proposal(s) concerned will be re-evaluated.
By analogy with Article 265a§3 of Implementing Rules to the Financial Regulation, a breach of the code of conduct or
other serious misconduct by the expert may be qualified as grave professional misconduct and may lead to the exclusion
of this expert from the list drawn up following the call for expression of interest provided for in Article 179a of the
Financial Regulation. Pursuant to such exclusion, the expert will be removed from the database and barred from re-
registering for the duration of the exclusion.
3.4. Independent observers
With a view to ensuring a high degree of transparency, the Commission may appoint independent experts to act as
observers (hereafter “observers”) of the evaluation process from the point of view of its working and execution. Their role
is to give independent advice to the Commission on the conduct and fairness of all phases of the evaluation sessions, on
ways in which the expert evaluators apply the evaluation criteria, and on ways in which the procedures could be
improved. As such, they shall verify that the procedures set out or referred to in these Rules are adhered to, and
report their findings and recommendations to the Commission. They are also encouraged to enter into informal
discussions with the Commission officials involved in the evaluation sessions and to suggest to the Commission any
possible improvements that could be put into practice immediately. However, in the framework of their work, they
should not express views on the proposals under evaluation or the experts’ opinions on the proposals.
( 1 ) The steps in the evaluation process are described in section 3.8.
( 2 ) Where necessary, guidelines may be set out in the internal control standards of the DG or of the Research Executive Agency.

---

EN
22.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
75/11
To this end, it is not necessary that the observers have expertise in the area of the proposals being evaluated. Indeed, it is
considered advantageous to avoid having observers with too intimate knowledge of the particular S & T area in order to
avoid conflicts between their opinions on the outcome of the evaluations and the functioning of the sessions. In any case,
they will not express views on the proposals under examination or the experts’ opinions on the proposals.
The observers are invited to be present from the beginning of the evaluation sessions when the experts are briefed by the
Commission. When part of an evaluation takes place away from the Commission premises (“remote evaluation”), the
observer may assess that stage after the event on the basis of discussion with the experts once they have gathered in
Brussels (or other central evaluation site).
The Commission shall inform the programme committees of the choice of experts as observers, and their terms of
reference as well as of the observers’ findings and may make available publicly a summary of their report.
Observers are required to respect the same obligations as the experts with regard to confidentiality and avoidance of
conflicts of interest, and they sign the same declaration to that effect (see Annex F). They are not permitted to divulge
details of the proposals, the experts assigned to examining the proposals, nor the discussions in the evaluation panels. The
observers have to respect a code of conduct annexed to their letter of appointment.
3.5. Evaluation criteria
All eligible proposals are evaluated by the Commission, assisted by experts where provided for, to assess their merit with
respect to the evaluation criteria relevant for the call.
The detailed evaluation criteria and sub-criteria ( 1 ), and associated weights and thresholds, are set out in the work
programmes, based on the principles given in the specific programmes, and on the criteria given in the Rules for
Participation. The criteria consist of selection and award criteria in the meaning of the Financial Regulation
(Article 115) and its implementing rules ( 2 ) (Articles 176 and 177).
The manner in which they will be applied will be further explained in the call for proposals and associated Guide for
Applicants.
3.6. Proposal scoring
Experts examine the issues to be considered comprising each evaluation criterion, and score these on a scale from 0 to 5.
Half point scores may be given.
For each criterion under examination, score values indicate the following assessments:
0 — The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete
information;
1 — Poor: The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses;
2 — Fair: While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses;
3 — Good: The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary;
4 — Very Good: The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible;
5 — Excellent: The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are
minor.
3.7. Thresholds and weighting
Thresholds
Thresholds are set for some or all of the criteria, such that any proposal failing to achieve the threshold scores will be
rejected. In addition, an overall threshold may also be set. The thresholds to be applied to each criterion as well as any
overall threshold are set out in the work programme and call.
( 1 ) Certain sub-criteria will be used to assess applicants’ operational capacity.
( 2 ) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 1.

---

L 75/12
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
22.3.2011
If the proposal fails to achieve a threshold for a criterion, the evaluation of the proposal may be stopped.
It may be decided to divide the evaluation into several steps with the possibility of different experts examining the
different criteria. Where the evaluation is carried out in several successive steps, any proposal failing a threshold score
may not progress to the next step. Such proposals may immediately be categorised as rejected.
Weighting
According to the specific nature of the funding schemes and the call, it may be decided to weight the criteria. The
weightings to be applied to each criterion are set out in the work programme and call.
3.8. Detailed description of proposal evaluation ( 1 )
(a) Briefing of the experts
The Commission is responsible for the briefing of experts before evaluation sessions. The briefing of the experts covers
the evaluation processes and procedures as well as the evaluation criteria to be applied, and the content and expected
impacts of the research topics under consideration. Specific warnings about confidentiality, impartiality and concealment
of conflict of interest will be included.
Particular attention will be given to the briefing of experts who will work remotely, when specially adapted material may
be needed (e.g. CD-ROMs, on-line presentations). Close contact is maintained with the individual experts to assist them on
any query.
(b) Individual evaluation of proposals
Proposals are evaluated by a minimum of three experts. A minimum of five experts will apply to proposals for Networks
of Excellence, and in other cases when specified in the relevant Guide for Applicants.
In the initial phase of the evaluation each expert works individually, and gives scores and comments for each criterion as
described in the work programme and call.
They also indicate if the proposal:
— falls entirely out of the scope of the call for proposals,
— deals with sensitive ethical issues,
— requires further scrutiny with regard to security considerations (see Annex B).
When remote evaluation is used, the Commission forwards copies of the proposals to be examined to each individual
expert. This may be done by sending paper copies by post or courier service or by making the proposal available
electronically.
Justification of scoring
Experts are required to provide comments to accompany each of their scores. These comments must be consistent with
any scores awarded and serve as input to any consensus discussion and related consensus report.
Outcome of the individual evaluation
After the individual evaluation of a proposal, the expert completes an individual evaluation report confirming his/her
individual reading and assessment. In the case of remote evaluation, the results are communicated to the Commission by
post or electronically. The expert’s individual evaluation report shall not subsequently be changed. In signing (or
approving by electronic means) the individual evaluation report, each expert confirms that he/she has no conflict of
interest with respect to the evaluation of that particular proposal.
In some instances, experts may be asked to perform only the individual evaluation. In this case, their individual evaluation
report are forwarded to the experts involved in the consensus phase (see below) to be taken into account in the
preparation of the consensus report.
( 1 ) Due to their special nature, the procedures that apply to the “People” specific programme differ somewhat to those described in this
section (see Annex G).

---

EN
22.3.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
75/13
If a proposal is considered to be out of scope by all individual experts, it may be considered to be ineligible and may not
be passed on to the consensus stage.
(c) Consensus
Once all the experts to whom a proposal has been assigned have completed their individual assessments, the evaluation
progresses to a consensus assessment, representing their common views.
This normally entails a consensus meeting (or electronic forum) to discuss the scores awarded and to prepare comments.
The consensus discussion is moderated by a Commission representative (“the moderator”). The role of the moderator is to
seek a consensus between the individual views of experts without any prejudice for or against particular proposals or the
organisations involved, and to ensure a fair and equitable evaluation of each proposal according to the required evaluation
criteria.
The moderator for the group may designate an expert to be responsible for drafting the consensus report (“rapporteur”).
The experts attempt to agree on a consensus score for each of the criteria that have been evaluated and suitable
comments to justify the scores. Comments should be suitable for feedback to the proposal coordinator. Scores and
comments are set out in a consensus report.
If applicable, they also come to a common view on the questions of scope, ethics and security, as mentioned under step
(b) above.
If during the consensus discussion it is found to be impossible to bring all the experts to a common point of view on any
particular aspect of the proposal, the Commission official in charge of the evaluation may ask up to three additional
experts to examine the proposal.
Outcome of consensus
The outcome of the consensus step is the consensus report, signed (or approved by electronic means) by the moderator
and all the experts, or as a minimum, by the moderator and the “rapporteur”. The moderator is responsible for ensuring
that the consensus report reflects the consensus reached, expressed in scores and comments. In the case that it is
impossible to reach a consensus, the report sets out the majority view of the experts but also records any dissenting
views, possibly in annex, from any particular expert(s).
The Commission will take the necessary steps to assure the quality of the consensus reports, with particular attention
given to clarity, consistency, appropriate level of detail. If important changes are necessary, the reports will be referred
back to the experts concerned.
The signing (or electronic approval) of the consensus report completes the consensus step.
Evaluation of a resubmitted proposal
In the case of proposals that have been submitted previously to the Commission in FP7, the moderator gives the experts
the previous evaluation summary report (see below) at the consensus stage, if the previous evaluation took place under
comparable conditions (e.g. broadly similar work programme topics and criteria). If necessary, the experts will be required
to provide a clear justification for their scores and comments should these differ markedly from those awarded to the
earlier proposal.
(d) Panel review
This is the final step involving the experts. It allows them to formulate their recommendations to the Commission having
had an overview of the results of the consensus step. The practical arrangements are determined in the light of the nature
of the call and number of proposals submitted to it.
For a particular call, or part of a call, it may be possible to arrange for all the experts to examine all the proposals, and
carry out their final review at the same time as they prepare the consensus reports. These experts are thus considered to
constitute the panel.

---

L 75/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
22.3.2011
Otherwise, a new panel is created that may comprise experts involved at the