GUIDE FOR APPLICANTS

Information and Communication Technologies

ICT

Funding scheme: Coordination and support actions

Coordination actions (CA)
also covers ERANET Plus actions

FP7-ICT-2011-8
FP7-2012-ICT-GC

Further copies of this Guide, together with all information related to this Call for
Proposals, can be downloaded via
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/home
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

About this Guide

This is version number 8 of the FP7 ICT Guide for Applicants for calls using
single-stage submission procedures.

A separate Guide is available for proposals in the FET Proactive objective

which is included in ICT Call 8

This Guide is based on the rules and conditions contained in the legal
documents relating to FP7 (in particular the Seventh Framework Programme,
Specific Programmes, Rules for Participation, and the ICT Work programme),
all of which can be consulted via the CORDIS web-site. The Guide does not
in itself have legal value, and thus does not supersede those documents.

th
ii 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Contents

1. GETTING STARTED ............................................................................................................................................. 4

2. ABOUT THE FUNDING SCHEME ...................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 COORDINATION ACTIONS (CAS)................................................................................................................................ 4
3. HOW TO APPLY .................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1. TURNING YOUR IDEA INTO AN EFFECTIVE PROPOSAL ................................................................................................ 6
3.2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION ............................................................................................................................................ 9
4. CHECK LIST......................................................................................................................................................... 14
4.1. PREPARING YOUR PROPOSAL .................................................................................................................................. 14
4.2. FINAL CHECKS BEFORE SUBMISSION ....................................................................................................................... 15
4.3. THE DEADLINE: VERY IMPORTANT! ........................................................................................................................ 15
4.4 FOLLOWING SUBMISSION......................................................................................................................................... 15
5. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT ..................................................................................................................................... 15
GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................................................... 19
ANNEXES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Annex 1: Timetable and specific information for this call ....................................................................................... 27
Annex 2: Evaluation criteria and procedures to be applied to Coordination action proposals in this call............. 30
Annex 3: Instructions for completing Part A of the proposal .................................................................................. 36
Annex 4: Instructions for drafting Part B of the proposal ....................................................................................... 45
Annex 5: Ethical Guidelines for undertaking ICT research in FP7......................................................................... 56
Annex 6: Pre-proposal check form .......................................................................................................................... 59
Annex 7 ERANET Plus actions ................................................................................................................................ 61

th
iii 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

1. Getting started
Funding decisions in the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) are made on the basis of
proposals. Proposals describe planned activities, information on who will carry them out, and how
much they will cost. The Commission evaluates all eligible proposals in order to identify those
whose quality is sufficiently high for possible funding. This evaluation is a peer-review carried out
by independent experts.

The Commission then negotiates with some or all of those whose proposals have successfully
passed the evaluation stage, depending on the budget available. If negotiations are successfully
concluded, grant agreements providing for an EU financial contribution are established with the
participants.

This Guide for Applicants contains the essential information to guide you through the mechanics of
preparing and submitting a proposal. It is important that you have the correct Guide ! Not only are
there different Guides for different calls, there are different Guides for the other funding schemes
within the same call.

You must also refer to the current ICT Workprogramme. This provides a detailed description of
the objectives and topics which are open for proposals, and will describe the wider context of
research activities in this area. Work programmes are revised regularly, so make sure you refer to
the latest version before preparing your proposal.

Please check that this is the right guide for you by consulting the work
programme and the call fiche (both documents posted on the Participant Portal
website), and the description of the funding scheme in the next section.

This Guide and the work programme are essential reading. However, you may also wish to consult
other reference and background documents, particular those relating to negotiation and the grant
agreements, which are made available on the Commission’s CORDIS web site (see annex 1 of this
guide) and on the Participant Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal.

All research activities supported by the Seventh Framework Programme should respect
fundamental ethical principles.

2. About the funding scheme

2.1 General
A number of funding schemes are available to implement projects in FP7, but only certain ones
may be available for the topics covered by this call. These are indicated in the call fiche.

This Guide covers the funding scheme for Coordination actions (CAs), and a description of these is
given in this section. Please note that additional conditions may apply on a call-by-call basis.
These will always be set out in the work programme (which includes the call fiche).

Note: Your proposal will be evaluated according to the funding scheme which you select. The
Commission services will not re-examine or re-assign it on your behalf.

2.2 Coordination actions (CAs)

Purpose
The purpose of these projects is to coordinate or create a network between other research actions
for a specific purpose over a given time.
th
4 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Size and resources

Coordination actions must involve at least three legal entities, independent of each other,
established in three different Member States or Associated countries (the countries concerned are
listed in section 3 of this Guide). Typically the number of participants in CAs for the ICT Theme
varies from 13 to 26 participants and the EU contribution varies between 0.5 and 2 M€, with an
average around the 1 M€.

Duration
CAs are expected to last typically eighteen months to three years. However, there is no formal
minimum or maximum duration.

Activities
The coordination or networking actions cover the following activities:

the organisation of events - including conferences, meetings, workshops or seminars -,

related studies, exchanges of personnel, exchange and dissemination of good practices,
and, if necessary, the definition, organisation and management of joint or common
initiatives together of course with management of the action.

Research and technological development cannot be supported within this scheme

Financial Regime
Reimbursement will be based on eligible costs (based on maximum rates of reimbursement
specified in the grant agreement for different types of activities within the project). In some cases
the reimbursement of indirect costs is based on a flat rate.

The work programmes shall specify if other forms of reimbursement are to be used in the actions
concerned. Participants in International Cooperation Partner countries (see Annex 1 of the work
programme) may opt for a lump sum.

If so provided in the call fiche, it is possible to claim subsistence and accommodation costs (related
to travel as part of the implementation of a project) on the basis of flat rates. These rates, which do
not cover travel costs, are in the form of a daily allowance for every country. The use of these rates
is optional, but you may wish to use them when calculating your proposal budget. The rates
themselves, and the detailed rules for their use, are given at this address:
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/find-doc_en.html

Specific Characteristics
• The description of work (annex 1 to the grant agreement) is normally fixed for the duration
of the project.
• The composition of the consortium is normally fixed for the duration of the project.

th
5 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Objective 3.5 Core and disruptive photonic technologies in ICT Call 8 call involves ERANET Plus
actions implemented under the Coordination action funding scheme.

See Annex 7 of this Guide for applicants

Proposers in this Objective should review Appendix 3 of the ICT Workprogramme, and the fourth
general annex of the Cooperation Workprogramme.

Proposers in this Objective are strongly recommended to make use of the pre-proposal check
service for this call which is described in Annex 1 of this Guide for applicants.

3. How to apply
3.1. Turning your idea into an effective proposal
The coordinator
For a given proposal, the coordinator acts as the single point of contact between the participants
and the Commission. The coordinator is generally responsible for the overall planning of the
proposal and for building up the consortium that will do the work.

Focusing your planned work

The work you set out in your proposal must correspond to one or more of the topics, and
associated funding scheme(s), indicated in this call for proposals. Proposals that fail to do so will
be regarded as ineligible.

Multidisciplinary proposals addressing several topics may be submitted,

provided that the ‘centre of gravity’ lies in a topic or topics open in the call in
question.

Refer to the annex 2 of this Guide, and the work programme, to check the eligibility criteria and any
other additional conditions that apply. Refer also in those documents to the evaluation criteria
against which your proposal will be assessed. Keep these in mind as you develop your proposal.

Who can participate ?

In principle, a legal entity may participate in a proposal no matter where it is established.

A legal entity can be a so-called "natural person" (e.g. Mme Dupont) or a "legal person"
(e.g. National Institute for Research).

However, there are certain minimum conditions that have to be met relating to participation from
the EU and Associated countries. These conditions vary between funding schemes (see section 2),
and may also vary from call to call. See the call fiche for the conditions applicable to this call.

The EU Member States are:

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United
Kingdom.

th
6 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

The Associated Countries are:

Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Faroe Islands, FYR Macedonia, Iceland,
Israel, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey.

Other countries may become associated during the course of FP7. The latest news will
be posted on the CORDIS and Participant Portal web sites.

The following may receive EU funding in an FP7 project:

• Any legal entity established in a Member State or an Associated country (including the
European Commission’s Joint Research Centre), or created under Community law (e.g. a
European Economic Interest Grouping),
• Any international European interest organisation (see Glossary),
• Any legal entity established in an FP7 International Cooperation Partner Country (ICPC). The
list of ICPC can be found on the CORDIS web-site, and is given in annex 1 of the work
programme.
• Any other legal entity, under the conditions indicated below:
In the case of a participating international organisation, other than an international
European interest organisation, or a legal entity established in a non-EU country other than
an Associated country or ICPC, a Community financial contribution may be granted
provided that at least one of the following conditions is satisfied:
a) Provision is made to that effect in the specific programmes or in the relevant work
programme,
b) It is essential for carrying out the indirect action,
c) Such funding is provided for in a bilateral scientific and technological agreement or any
other arrangement between the Community and the country in which the legal entity is
established.

Before the signature of a grant agreement, the Commission has to verify the existence
and legal status of all participants. This verification is made only once for each
organisation at the time of its first participation in FP7. The details of all validated
organisations are stored in a Unique Registration Facility (URF). These organisations
are allocated a unique code, the so-called Participant Identification Code (PIC). In any
further participation in other proposals, the organisations already validated use the PIC
for their identification with the Commission.

For the confirmation and maintenance of the data stored in the URF, the Commission asks each
organisation to nominate one privileged contact person, the so-called Legal Entity Appointed Representative
(LEAR). The LEAR is usually a person working in the central administration of the organisation and he/she
must be appointed by the top management of the entity. The LEARs can view their organisations' legal and
financial data online and ask for corrections and changes to the data of their legal entity via the Web
interface of the Unique Registration Facility.

Cooperation with other countries

The Commission attaches great importance to international cooperation in research, and FP7 has
been designed to ensure that such activities can be integrated across the programme. In addition
to the opportunities mentioned above, which are generally applicable, calls may include:
• Topics of mutual interest defined in the work programmes where international cooperation is
particularly encouraged.
• Specific international cooperation actions (SICA), also on topics of mutual interest. Here
special minimum conditions apply.

Please check the work programme to see if these possibilities apply to this call.

th
7 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

More detailed practical advice on cooperation with third country participants in FP7 can be found
here: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/guideline-third-country-participants_en.pdf

National Contact Points

A network of National Contact Points (NCPs) has been established to provide advice and support
to organisations which are preparing proposals. You are highly recommended to get in touch with
your NCP at an early stage (see annex 1 of this Guide).

Please note that the Commission will give the NCPs statistics and information on the outcome of
the call (in particular, details of participants, but not proposal abstracts or funding details) and the
outcome of the evaluation for each proposal. This information is supplied to support the NCPs in
their service role, and is given under strict conditions of confidentiality.

Other sources of help

Annex 1 of this Guide gives references to these further sources of help for this call. In particular:

• The Commission’s general enquiry service on any aspect of FP7. Questions can be sent to a
single e-mail address and will be directed to the most appropriate department for reply.
• The ICT Information Desk
• A dedicated help desk has been set up to deal with questions related to research ethics issues
• A dedicated help desk has been set up to deal with technical questions related to the Electronic
Proposal Submission Service (EPSS).
• A further help desk providing assistance on intellectual property matters.
• Other services, including partner search facilities

Proposal language
Proposals may be prepared in any official language of the European Union. If your proposal is not
in English, a translation of the full proposal would be of assistance to the experts. An English
translation of the abstract must be included in Part B of the proposal.

Presenting your proposal

A proposal has two parts.

Part A will contain the administrative information about the proposal and the participants. The
information requested includes a brief description of the work, contact details and characteristics of
the participants, and information related to the funding requested (see Annex 3 of this Guide). This
information will be encoded in a structured database for further computer processing to produce,
for example, statistics and evaluation reports. This information will also support the experts and
Commission staff during the evaluation process.

The information in Part A is entered through a set of on-line forms using the Electronic Proposal
Submission Service (EPSS) described in the next section.

Part B is a "template", or list of headings, rather than an administrative form (see Annex 4 of this
Guide). You should follow this structure when presenting the scientific and technical content of
your proposal. The template is designed to highlight those aspects that will be assessed against
the evaluation criteria. It covers, among other things, the nature of the proposed work, the
participants and their roles in the proposed project, and the impacts that might be expected to arise
from the proposed work.

th
8 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Only black and white copies of Part B are used for evaluation and you are strongly recommended
therefore not to use colour in your document. Do not insert hypertext links, only the text of your
Part B will be read, not any documents linked to it.

Part B of the proposal is uploaded by the applicant into the Electronic Proposal Submission
Service.

A maximum length may be specified for the different sections of Part B, or for
Part B as a whole (see annex 4 of this Guide). You should keep your proposal
within these limits. Information given on excess pages may1 be disregarded.

Even where no page limits are given, it is in your interest to keep your text
concise since over-long proposals are rarely viewed in a positive light by the
evaluating experts.

Ethical principles
Please remember that research activities in FP7 should respect fundamental ethical principles,
including those reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Ethical
principles include the need to ensure the freedom of research and the need to protect the physical
and moral integrity of individuals and the welfare of animals. For this reason the European
Commission carries out an ethical review of proposals when appropriate.

The following fields of research shall not be financed under this Framework Programme:
• research activity aiming at human cloning for reproductive purposes;
• research activity intended to modify the genetic heritage of human beings which could
make such changes heritable2;
• research activities intended to create human embryos solely for the purpose of research or
for the purpose of stem cell procurement, including by means of somatic cell nuclear
transfer.

As regards human embryonic stem cell research, the Commission will maintain the practice of the
Sixth Framework Programme, which excludes from Community financial support research activities
destroying human embryos, including for the procurement of stem cells. The exclusion of funding
of this step of research will not prevent Community funding of subsequent steps involving human
embryonic stem cells.

3.2. Proposal submission

About the EPSS
Proposals must be submitted electronically, using the Commission's Electronic Proposal
Submission Service (EPSS). Proposals arriving at the Commission by any other means are
regarded as ‘not submitted’, and will not be evaluated3.

1
The Commission does not impose upon itself the duty to edit proposals for length, but reserves the right to instruct the evaluators to
disregard excess pages.
2
Research relating to cancer treatment of the gonads can be financed.

3
In exceptional cases, when a proposal co-ordinator has absolutely no means of accessing the EPSS, and when it is impossible to
arrange for another member of the consortium to do so, an applicant may request permission from the Commission to submit on paper.
A request should be sent via the FP7 enquiry service (see annex 1), indicating in the subject line "Paper submission request". (You can
telephone the enquiry service if web access is not possible: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 from Europe; or 32 2 299 96 96 from anywhere in the
world. A postal or e-mail address will then be given to you). Such a request, which must clearly explain the circumstances of the case,
must be received by the Commission no later than one month before the call deadline. The Commission will reply within five working
days of receipt. Only if a derogation is granted, a proposal on paper may be submitted by mail, courier or hand delivery. The delivery
address will be given in the derogation letter.

th
9 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

All the data that you upload is securely stored on a server to which only you and the other
participants in the proposal have access until the deadline. This data is encrypted until the close of
the call.

You can access the EPSS from the call page on the Participant Portal.

Full instructions are found in the “EPSS preparation and submission guide”, available from the
EPSS entry page (click on "EPSS user guide").

The most important points are explained below.

Use of the system by the proposal coordinator

As a coordinator you can:
• register as interested in submitting a proposal to a particular call
• set up (and modify) your consortium by adding/removing participants
• complete all of Part A of the proposal, pertaining to the proposal in general, and to your
own administrative details
• download the document template for writing Part B of the proposal and, when it is
completed, upload the finished Part B
• submit the complete proposal Part A and Part B.

Use of the system by the other participants

Other participants can:
• complete their own sections A2 (participant details)
• download the document template for writing Part B of the proposal, in order to assist the
coordinator in preparing it (however, only the coordinator can upload the finished version)
• view the whole proposal.

Participant Identification Codes (PICs) / Unique Registration Facility (URF)

The Participant Identification Code is a unique 9 digit number that helps the European Commission
identify a participant. It is used in all grant-related interactions between the participant and the
Commission.

If your organisation has already participated in a 7th Framework Programme proposal, it is likely
that the organisation has already received a PIC number. You can check it on the Participant
Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/myorganisations

If your organisation already has a PIC, it is likely that it has also appointed a Legal Entity
Appointed Representatives (LEAR) (see section 3.1.). The names of LEARs are not
available online, you have to enquire with the administration of your organisation.

All participants already possessing a PIC should use it to identify themselves in the Electronic
Proposal Submission System. After entering the PIC, parts of the A forms will be filled in
automatically.

If a PIC is not yet available for your organisation, you can still submit your proposal by entering the
organisation details manually. However, it is strongly recommended that before submitting a
proposal via the Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS), you register your organisation in
the Unique Registration Facility and receive a temporary PIC, which can then be used in the
EPSS. The use of PICs – even temporary ones – will lead to more efficient processing of your
proposal. Registration in the Unique Registration Facility for receiving a temporary PIC is quick
and simple: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/myorganisations
th
10 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

In case you use the PIC of your organisation in the EPSS and the data on your organisation
displayed in EPSS seem to contain mistakes, please ask your LEAR to change the data through
the Unique Registration Facility (URF). This parallel process has no influence on the preparation
and submission of your proposal. The proposal can be submitted even without the correction of
such errors.

Submitting the proposal

Only the coordinator is authorised to submit the proposal, only the coordinator should be logged
into the EPSS when the submission attempt is made.

Completing the Part A forms in the EPSS and uploading a Part B does not yet mean that your
proposal is submitted. Once there is a consolidated version of the proposal, you must press the
button "SUBMIT NOW". (If you don't see the button "SUBMIT NOW", first select the "SUBMIT" tag
at the top of the screen).

Please note that "SUBMIT NOW" starts the final steps for submission; it does not in itself
cause the proposal to be submitted.

After reading the information page that then appears, it is possible to submit the proposal using the
button marked “Press this button to submit the proposal”. The EPSS then performs an automatic
validation of the proposal. A list of any problems ("validation error message") such as missing data,
viruses, wrong file format or excessive file size will then appear on the screen. Submission is
blocked until these problems are corrected. When corrected, the coordinator must then repeat
the above steps to achieve submission.

If the submission sequence described above is not followed, the Commission considers that no
proposal has been submitted.

When successfully submitted, the coordinator sees a message that indicates that the proposal has
been received. This automatic message is not the official acknowledgement of receipt (see Section
5). The coordinator may continue to modify the proposal and submit revised versions overwriting
the previous one right up until the deadline. The sequence described above must be repeated
each time.

For the proposal Part B you must use exclusively PDF (“portable document format”, compatible
with Adobe version 3 or higher, with embedded fonts). Other file formats will not be accepted by
the system. Irrespective of any page limits specified in annex 4 to this Guide, there is an overall
limit of 10 Mbyte to the size of proposal file Part B. There are also restrictions to the name you give
to the Part B file. You should only use alphanumeric characters, special characters and spaces
must be avoided.

You are advised to clean your document before converting it to PDF (e.g. accept
all tracked changes, delete notes).

Check that your conversion software has successfully converted all the pages of
your original document (e.g. there is no problem with page limits).

Check that your conversion software has not cut down landscape pages to fit
them into portrait format. Check that captions and labels have not been lost from
your diagrams

th
11 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Please note that the Commission prints out proposals in black and white on
plain A4 paper. The printable zone on the print engine is bounded by 1.5 cm
right, left, top bottom. No scaling is applied to make the page "fit" the window.
Printing is done at 300 dots per inch.

About the deadline

Proposals must be submitted on or before the deadline specified in the call fiche. It is your
responsibility to ensure the timely submission of your proposal.

The EPSS will be closed for this call at the call deadline. After this moment, access to the EPSS for
this call will be impossible.

Do not wait until the last moment before submitting your proposal!

Call deadlines are absolutely firm and are strictly enforced.

Please note that you may submit successive drafts of your proposal through the EPSS. Each
successive submission overwrites the previous version. It is a good idea to submit a draft well
before the deadline.

Leaving your first submission attempt to the last few minutes of the call will give
you no time to overcome even the smallest technical difficulties, proposal
verification problems or communications delays which may arise. Such events
are never accepted as extenuating circumstances; your proposal will be
regarded as not having been submitted.

Submission is deemed to occur at the moment when the proposal coordinator

completes the submission sequence described above. It is not the point at which
you start the upload. If you wait until too near to the close of the call to start
uploading your proposal, there is a serious risk that you will not be able to
submit in time.

If you have registered and submitted your proposal in error to another call which
closes after this call, the Commission will not be aware of it until it is discovered
among the downloaded proposals for the later call. It will therefore be classified
as ineligible because of late arrival.

The submission of a proposal requires some knowledge of the EPSS system, a

detailed knowledge of the contents of the proposal and the authority to make
last-minute decisions on behalf of the consortium if problems arise. You are
advised not to delegate the job of submitting your proposal!

In the unlikely event of a failure of the EPSS service due to breakdown of the Commission server
during the last 24 hours of this call, the deadline will be extended by a further 24 hours. This will be
notified by e-mail to all proposal coordinators who had registered for this call by the time of the
original deadline, and also by a notice on the Call pages on the Participant Portal and on the
website of the EPSS. Such a failure is a rare and exceptional event; therefore do not assume that
there will be an extension to this call. If you have difficulty in submitting your proposal, you should
not assume that it is because of a problem with the Commission server, as this is rarely the case.
Contact the EPSS help desk if in doubt (see the address given in annex 1 of this Guide).

Please note that the Commission will not extend deadlines for system failures that are not its own
responsibility. In all circumstances, you should aim to submit your proposal well before the
deadline to have time to solve any problems.

th
12 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

A small number of calls operate a continuous submission procedure. These

calls are open for an extended period, during which proposals will be evaluated
in batches after fixed cut-off dates. The call fiche will show whether intermediate
cut-off dates apply to his call.

Correcting or revising your proposal

Errors discovered in proposals submitted to the EPSS can be rectified by simply submitting a
corrected version. So long as the call has not yet closed, the new submission will overwrite the old
one.

Once the deadline has passed, however, the Commission can accept no further additions,
corrections or re-submissions.

The last version of your proposal received before the deadline is the one which will be
taken into consideration; no later version can be substituted, no earlier version can be
recovered.

Ancillary material
Only a single PDF file comprising the complete Part B can be uploaded. Unless specified in the
call, any hyperlinks to other documents, embedded material, and any other documents (company
brochures, supporting documentation, reports, audio, video, multimedia etc.) sent electronically or
by post will be disregarded.

Withdrawing a proposal
You may withdraw a proposal before the call deadline by submitting a revised version with an
empty Part B section, and with the following text in the abstract field of form A1:

"The applicants wish to withdraw this proposal. It should not be evaluated by the Commission".

You may also withdraw a proposal after the deadline. Contact the EPSS help desk.

Registration of legal entities in the Commission's Early Warning System (EWS) and Central
Exclusion Database (CED).
To protect the EU's financial interests, the Commission uses an internal information tool, the Early
Warning System (EWS) to flag identified risks related to beneficiaries of centrally managed
contracts and grants. Through systematic registration of financial and other risks the EWS enables
the Commission services to take the necessary precautionary measures to ensure a sound
financial management1.

EWS registrations are not publicly disclosed. However, registrations will be transferred to the
Central Exclusion Database (CED) if they relate to entities that have been excluded from EU
funding because they are insolvent or have been convicted of a serious professional misconduct or
criminal offence detrimental to EU financial interests. The data in CED are available to all public
authorities implementing EU funds, i.e. European institutions, national agencies or authorities in
Member States, and, subject to conditions for personal data protection, to third countries and
international organisations.

1
The EWS covers situations such as significantly overdue recovery orders, judicial proceedings pending for serious administrative
errors/fraud, findings of serious administrative errors/fraud, legal situations which exclude the beneficiary from funding.

th
13 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

The work programme informs you that the details of your organisation (or those of a person who
has powers of representation, decision-making or control over it) may be registered in the EWS
and the CED and be shared with public authorities as described in the relevant legal texts1.

More information on the EWS and CED can be found here:

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/management/protecting/protect_en.cfm

4. Check list
4.1. Preparing your proposal
• Does your planned work fit with the call for proposals? Check that your proposed work
does indeed address one of the topics open in this call. (See the current version of the work
programme).

• Are you applying for the right call and funding scheme? Check that you have applied for
the right call and one of the funding schemes open for your chosen topic (see the work
programme)2.

• Is your proposal eligible? The eligibility criteria are given in the work programme. See also
annex 2 of this Guide. In particular, make sure that you satisfy the minimum requirements for
the makeup of your consortium. Have any additional eligibility criteria been set for this call?
Check that you comply with any budgetary limits that may have been fixed on the requested
EU contribution. Any proposal not meeting the eligibility requirements will be considered
ineligible and will not be evaluated.

• Is your proposal complete? Proposals must comprise a Part A, containing the administrative
information including participant and project cost details on standard forms; and a Part B
containing the scientific and technical description of your proposal as described in this Guide. A
proposal that does not contain both parts will be considered ineligible and will not be evaluated.

• Does your proposal follow the required structure? Proposals should be precise and
concise, and must follow exactly the proposal structure described in this document (see annex
4 of this Guide), which is designed to correspond to the evaluation criteria which will be
applied. Omitting requested information will almost certainly lead to lower scores and possible
rejection.

• Does your proposed work raise ethical issues? Clearly indicate any potential ethical, safety
or regulatory aspects of the proposed research and the way these will be dealt with prior and
during the implementation of the proposed project. A preliminary ethics control will take place
during the evaluation and, if needed, an ethics screening and/or review will take place for those
proposals raising ethics issues. Proposals may be rejected on ethical grounds if such issues
are not dealt with satisfactorily.

• Have you maximised your chances? There will be strong competition. Therefore, edit your
proposal tightly, strengthen or eliminate weak points. Put yourself in the place of an expert

1
The basis of registrations in EWS and CED is laid out in the Commission Decision of 16.12.2008 on the Early Warning System (EWS)
for the use of authorising officers of the Commission and the executive agencies (OJ, L 344, 20.12.2008, p. 125) and the Commission
Regulation of 17.12.2008 on the Central Exclusion Database – CED (OJ L 344, 20.12.2008, p. 12).

2
If you have in error registered for the wrong call or funding scheme, discard that registration (usernames and passwords) and register
again before the call deadline. If, after the close of the call, you discover that you have submitted your proposal to the wrong call, notify
the EPSS Helpdesk.

th
14 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

evaluator; refer to the evaluation criteria given in annex 2 of this Guide. Arrange for your draft
to be evaluated by experienced colleagues; use their advice to improve it before submission.

• Do you need further advice and support? You are strongly advised to inform your National
Contact Point of your intention to submit a proposal (see address in annex 1 of this Guide).
Remember also the Enquiry service listed in annex 1 of this Guide.

4.2. Final checks before submission

• Do you have the agreement of all the members of the consortium to submit this proposal on
their behalf?
• Is your Part B in portable document format (PDF), including no material in other formats?
• Is your Part B filename made up only of the letters A to Z and numbers 0 to 9 without special
characters or spaces?
• Have you printed out your Part B, to check that it really is the file you intend to submit, and that
it is complete, printable and readable? After the call deadline it will not be possible to replace
your Part B file
• Have you respected the font size (11 point) and the page limitations for the different sections?
• Is your Part B file within the size limit of 10 Mbytes?
• Have you virus-checked your computer? The EPSS will automatically block the submission of
any file containing a virus.

4.3. The deadline: very important!

• Have you made yourself familiar with the EPSS in good time?

• Have you allowed time to submit a draft version of your proposal well in advance of the
deadline (at least several days before), and then to continue to improve it with regular
resubmissions?
• Have you completed the EPSS submission process for your final version?

4.4 Following submission

• Information submitted to the EPSS remains encrypted on the Commission server until the
deadline, but it can still be viewed by the applicant.
• It is highly recommended that after uploading and submitting your final version, you then review
what you have uploaded
• Do this while there is still time to submit a corrected version if necessary

5. What happens next

Shortly after the call deadline (or batch date in the case of continuously open calls), the
Commission will send an Acknowledgement of receipt to the e-mail address of the proposal
coordinator given in the submitted proposal. This is assumed to be the individual named as
“person in charge” on the A2 form of participant no. 1. Please note that the brief electronic
message given by the EPSS system after each submission is not the official Acknowledgement of
receipt.

th
15 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

The sending of an acknowledgement of receipt does not imply that a proposal has been accepted
as eligible for evaluation.

If you have not received an Acknowledgement of receipt within 12 working days

after the call deadline (or cut-off date, in the case of a continuously open call),
you should contact the FP7 Enquiry Service (see annex 1 of this Guide).
However, first please check that you are the person named in the proposal as
contact person for partner no. 1, check the email address which you gave for
yourself, and check the junk mail box of your email system for a few days
following the close of call for any mail originating from [email protected].

The Commission will check that your proposal meets the eligibility criteria that apply to this call
and funding scheme (see the work programme and annex 2 of this Guide).

All eligible proposals will be evaluated by independent experts. The evaluation criteria and
procedure are described in annex 2 of this Guide.

If hearings are planned in this call (see annex 2 of this Guide), you will receive an invitation if your
proposal is highly rated in the initial stages of the evaluation. In this case, you will be asked by the
evaluation panel to provide further details on the proposal. The letter of invitation will specify the
date and time and the particular arrangements. It may also list a number of specific questions
concerning the proposal, which you should be prepared to respond to at the hearing. The letter will
explain how to reply if you cannot attend in person.

Soon after the completion of the evaluation, the results will be finalised and all coordinators will
receive a letter containing initial information on the results of the evaluation, including the
Evaluation Summary Report giving the opinion of the experts on their proposal. However, even if
the experts viewed your proposal favourably, the Commission cannot at this stage indicate if there
is a possibility of EU funding.

If you have not received your ESR by the date referred to in annex I of this
Guide, please contact the Commission via the FP7 enquiry service.

The letter will also give the relevant contact details and the steps to follow if you consider that there
has been a shortcoming in the conduct of the evaluation process ("redress procedure").

The Commission also informs the relevant programme committee, consisting of delegates
representing the governments of the Member states and Associated countries.

Based on the results of the evaluation by experts, the Commission draws up the final list of
proposals for possible funding, taking account of the available budget.

Official letters are then sent to the applicants. If all has gone well, this letter will mark the beginning
of a negotiation phase. Due to budget constraints, it is also possible that your proposal will be
placed on a reserve list. In this case, negotiations will only begin if funds become available. In
other cases, the letter will explain the reasons why the proposal cannot be funded on this occasion.

Negotiations between the applicants and the Commission aim to conclude a grant agreement
which provides for EU funding of the proposed work. They cover both the scientific/technological,
and the administrative and financial aspects of the project. The officials conducting these
negotiations on behalf of the Commission will be working within a predetermined budget envelope.
They will refer to any recommendations which the experts may have made concerning
modifications to the work presented in the proposal, as well as any recommendations arising from
an ethical review of the proposal if one was carried out. The negotiations will also deal with gender
equality actions, and, if applicable to the project, with gender aspects in the conduct of the planned

th
16 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

work, as well as the relevant principles contained in the European Charter for researchers and the
Code of Conduct for their recruitment. Where relevant, security aspects shall be considered also.

A description of the negotiation process is provided in the "FP7 Negotiation guidance notes"
(available on CORDIS). Members of the proposal consortium may be invited to Brussels or
Luxembourg to facilitate the negotiation.

For participants in negotiated proposals not yet having a Participant Identification Code (PIC) - i.e.
not yet registered and validated in the Commission's Unique Registration Facility (URF) - their
existence as legal entities and their legal status will have to be validated before any grant
agreement can be signed.

Applicants are reminded that the Commission's Research DGs have adopted a new and reinforced
audit strategy aimed at detecting and correcting errors in cost claims submitted in projects on the
basis of professional auditing standards. As a result the number of audits and participants audited
will increase significantly and the Commission's services will assure appropriate mutual exchange
of information within its relevant internal departments in order to fully coordinate any corrective
actions to be taken in a consistent way. More information can be found here:
http://cordis.europa.eu/audit-certification/home_en.html

Risk sharing finance facility

The Risk-sharing Finance Facility (RSFF) provides project financial support in addition to the FP7
grant. This innovative debt-based facility, designed by the European Commission and the
European Investment Bank, creates an additional capacity of up to €10 billion for financing higher
risk research, technological development, demonstration and innovation activities.

The EIB will implement RSFF in close collaboration with all major EU national and regional banks
within Member states and Associated countries to FP7, which are providing support to the
development of European companies.

Financing through the RSFF can be sought either in addition to, or instead of FP7 grants.

For additional information on RSFF see:

http://www.eib.org/products/loans/special/rsff/index
http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/funding/funding02_en.htm

th
17 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Summary of the evaluation and selection process

The sequence of steps in the evaluation and selection procedure is summarised in the following
flow chart:

Proposal

Eligibility

Evaluation by
experts

Ethical
Applicants informed of results Review
of expert evaluation* (if needed)

Commission ranking

• invitation to submit second-stage Negotiation

proposal, when applicable

Commission rejection Consultation of programme committee

decision (if required)
Applicants informed of
Commission decision Commission funding
and/or rejection decision

th
18 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Glossary

The following explanations are provided for clarity and easy-reference. They have no legal
authority, and do not replace any official definitions set out in the Council decisions.

A
Acknowledgement of receipt :

Applicants are informed by email shortly after the deadline that a proposal has been successfully submitted
(but not that it is necessarily eligible). Contact the FP7 Enquiry service urgently if you do not receive such an
acknowledgement within a few days of the close of call (or batch, for continuous submission calls).

Applicant

The term used generally in this guide for a person or entity applying to a call for proposals. The term
‘participant’ is used in the more limited sense of a member of a proposal or project consortium (see below).

Associated countries

Non-EU countries which are party to an international agreement with the Community, under the terms or on
the basis of which it makes a financial contribution to all or part of the Seventh Framework Programme. In
the context of proposal consortia, organisations from these countries are treated on the same footing as
those in the EU. The list of associated countries is given in the body of this guide.

C
Call fiche

The part of the work programme giving the basic data for a call for proposals (e.g. topics covered, budget,
deadline etc). It is posted as a separate document on the Participant Portal web page devoted to a particular
call.

Call for proposals (or "call")

An announcement, usually in the Official Journal, inviting proposals for research activities in a certain theme.
Full information on the call can be found on the Participant Portal web-site.

Consensus meeting

The stage in the proposal evaluation process when experts come together to establish a common view on a
particular proposal.

Consortium

Most funding schemes require proposals from a number of participants (usually at least three) who agree to
work together in a consortium.

Continuous submission

Some calls are open for an extended period, during which proposals may be submitted at any moment. In
these cases, proposals are evaluated in batches after fixed cut-off dates.

Coordinator

th
19 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

The coordinator leads and represents the applicants. He or she acts as the point of contact with the
Commission.

CORDIS service

A web service providing access to all the documentation related to FP7 (See also Participant Portal).

Cut-off date

An intermediate date in the context of a call operating a continuous submission procedure. Proposals are
evaluated in batches after each cut-off date.

D
Deadline

For a particular call, the moment after which proposals cannot be submitted to the Commission, and when
the Electronic Proposal Submission Service closes for that call. Deadlines are strictly enforced.

Deliverable

A deliverable represents a verifiable output of the project. Normally, each workpackage will produce one or
more deliverables during its lifetime. Deliverables are often written reports but can also take another form, for
example the completion of a prototype etc.

Direct costs

Direct costs are all eligible costs which can be attributed directly to the project and are identified by the
participant as such, in accordance with its accounting principles and its usual internal rules.

E
Early Warning System (EWS)

An internal information tool of the Commission to flag identified financial risks related to beneficiaries.

Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS)

A web-based service, which must be used to submit proposals to the Commission. Access is given through
the Participant Portal.

Electronic Proposal Submission Service (EPSS) Helpdesk

A telephone / email service to assist applicants who have difficulty in submitting their proposal via the
Electronic Proposal Submission System: tel: +32 2 233 3760 email [email protected]

Eligibility committee

An internal committee which examines in detail cases of proposals whose eligibility for inclusion in an
evaluation is in question

Eligibility criteria

The minimum conditions which a proposal must fulfil, if it is to be retained for evaluation. The eligibility
criteria are generally the same for all proposals throughout FP7, and relate to submission before the
deadline, minimum participation, completeness and scope. However, additional eligibility criteria may apply
to certain calls, and applicants should check the work programme, and annex 2 to this Guide.

Ethical issues table

th
20 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Research activities supported by the Framework Programme should respect fundamental ethical principles.
The main issues which might arise in a project are summarised in tabular form in a checklist included in the
proposal

Evaluation criteria

The criteria, against which eligible proposals are assessed by independent experts. The evaluation criteria
are generally the same for all proposals throughout FP7, and relate to S/T quality, impact and
implementation. Relevance is also considered. However, additional evaluation criteria may apply to certain
calls, and applicants should check the work programme, and annex 2 to this Guide.

Evaluation Summary Report (ESR)

The assessment of a particular proposal following the evaluation by independent experts is provided in an
Evaluation Summary Report. It normally contains both comments and scores for each evaluation criterion.

F
FP7 enquiry service

A general information service on all aspects of FP7. Contact details are given in annex 1 to this Guide.

Funding scheme

The mechanisms for the Community funding of research projects. The funding schemes have different
objectives, and are implemented through grant agreements.

G
Grant Agreement (GA)

The legal instrument that provides for Commission funding of projects.

H
Hearing

Applicants whose proposals have been evaluated are sometimes invited to provide explanations and
clarifications to any specific questions raised by the experts. These questions are transmitted to the
applicants in advance.

I
Indirect costs

Indirect costs, (sometimes called overheads), are all those eligible costs which cannot be identified by the
participant as being directly attributed to the project, but which can be identified and justified by its
accounting system as being incurred in direct relationship with the eligible direct costs attributed to the
project.

Individual evaluation

The stage in the evaluation process, when experts assess the merits of a particular proposal before
discussion with their peers.

Information Days

th
21 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Open events organised by the Commission to explain the characteristics of specific calls, and often as well, a
chance for potential applicants to meet and discuss proposal ideas and collaborations.

Initial information letter

The letter sent by the Commission to applicants shortly after the evaluation by experts, which includes the
report from the experts on the proposal in question (the Evaluation Summary Report).

International Cooperation Partner Countries (ICPC)

A list of low-income, lower-middle income and upper-middle-income countries, given in annex 1 to the work
programme. Organisations from these countries can participate and receive funding in FP7, providing that
certain minimum conditions are met.

International European Interest Organisation

International organisations, the majority of whose members are European Union Member states or
Associated countries, and whose principal objective is to promote scientific and technological co-operation in
Europe.

J
Joint Research Centre (JRC)

The Commission’s own research institutes.

L
LEAR (Legal Entity Authorised Representative)

The LEAR is a person nominated in each legal entity participating in FP7. This person is the contact for the
Commission related to all questions on legal status. He/she has access to the online database of legal
entities with a possibility to view the data stored on his/her entity and to initiate updates and corrections to
these data. The LEAR receives a Participant Identification Code (PIC) from the Commission (see below),
and distributes this number within his/her organisation.

Lump sum

Lump sums do not require the submission of financial justifications (statements), as they are "fixed". ICPC
participants when participating in an FP7 grant agreement have the choice between being reimbursed on the
basis of eligible costs or on the basis of lump-sums. This choice can be made up to the moment of the
signature of the grant agreement (whatever the final option chosen, the maximum EU contribution for the
project remains unchanged). Once made, it will apply during the whole duration of the agreement without the
possibility of changing it. ICPC participants may opt for a lump sum in a given project and for reimbursement
of costs in another.

M
Milestones

Control points where decisions are needed with regard to the next stage of the project.

N
National Contact Points (NCP)
th
22 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Official representatives nominated by the national authorities to provide tailored information and advice on
each theme of FP7, in the national language(s).

Negotiation

The process of establishing a grant agreement between the Commission and an applicant whose proposal
has been favourably evaluated, and when funds are available.

Non-profit

A legal entity is qualified as "non-profit" when considered as such by national or international law.

P
Part A

The part of a proposal dealing with administrative data. This part is completed using the web-based EPSS.

Part B

The part of a proposal explaining the work to be carried out, and the roles and aptitudes of the participants in
the consortium. This part is uploaded to the EPSS as a pdf file

Part B template

A document in PDF format supplied by the EPSS, consisting of a template of all chapter headings, forms and
tables required to prepare a proposal Part B. The template format is illustrated in Annex 4 to this Guide.

Participants

The members of a consortium in a proposal or project. These are legal entities, and have rights and
obligations with regard to the Community.

Participant Identification Code (PIC)

Organisations participating in FP7 will progressively be assigned Participant Identification Codes (PIC).
Possession of a PIC will enable organisations to take advantage of the Unique Registration Facility (see
below), and to identify themselves in all transactions related to FP7 proposals and grants.

Participant Portal

The single entry point for interaction with the research Directorates-General of the European Commission. It
hosts a full range of services that facilitate the monitoring and the management of proposals and projects
throughout their lifecycle, including calls for proposals, and access to the electronic proposal submission
service.

Programme committee

A group of official national representatives who assist the Commission in implementing the Framework
Programme.

Proposal

A description of the planned research activities, information on who will carry them out, how much they will
cost, and how much funding is requested

Public body

th
23 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Public body means any legal entity established as such by national law, and international organisations.

Redress procedure

The initial information letter will indicate an address if an applicant wishes to submit a request for redress, if
he or she believes that there have been shortcomings in the handling of the proposal in question, and that
these shortcomings would jeopardise the outcome of the evaluation process. An internal evaluation review
committee ("redress committee") will examine all such complaints. This committee does not itself evaluate
the proposal. It is possible that the committee will recommend a re-evaluation of all or part of the proposal.

Research organisation

A legal entity established as a non-profit organisation which carries out research or technological
development as one of its main objectives.

Reserve list

Due to budgetary constraints it may not be possible to support all proposals that have been evaluated
positively. In such conditions, proposals on a reserve list will only be financed if funds become available
following the negotiation of proposals on the main list.

Risk-Sharing Finance Facility (RSFF)

A new mechanism to foster private sector investment in research by increasing the capacity of the EIB and
its financial partners to provide loans for European RTD projects.

RTD

Research and Technological Development.

S
SME

SMEs are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. SMEs are defined in Recommendation 2003/361/EC
of 6 May 2003.

Specific flat rate (60%)

A 60% flat rate of the total direct costs applicable under certain conditions to non-profit public bodies,
secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs. This rate is available for
the entire duration of FP7.

Specific International Cooperation Actions (SICA)

In some calls on topics of mutual interest, special conditions apply to promote research collaborations
between European organisations and those based in the International Cooperation Partner Countries
(ICPC). This usually entails a minimum of two participants from EU or Associated countries, and two from
ICPC.

T
Thresholds

For a proposal to be considered for funding, the evaluation scores for individual criteria must exceed certain
thresholds. There is also an overall threshold for the sum of the scores.
th
24 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Two-stage submission

Some calls require proposals to be submitted in two stages. In this case, applicants initially present their idea
in a brief outline proposal. This is evaluated against evaluation criteria, or sub-criteria for this stage set out in
the call. Applicants successful in the first stage will be invited to submit a full proposal at the second stage,
which will be evaluated against criteria for this second stage set out in the call. The first stage criteria, as set
out in the work programme, are usually a limited set of those applying at the second stage.

Two-step evaluation

An evaluation procedure in which a proposal is evaluated first on a limited number of evaluation criteria
(usually, just one), and only those proposals which achieve the threshold on this are subject to a full
evaluation on the remaining criteria.

U
Unique Registration Facility (URF)

A system that will allow organisations who intend to submit on several occasions to register their details once
and for all, obviating the need to provide the same information with each submission. The Web interface of
the URF is found at http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/urf. On this website you will also find a search
tool to check if your organisation is already registered or not.

W
Weightings

The scores for certain evaluation criteria may be multiplied by a weighting factor before the total score is
calculated. Generally, weightings are set to one; but there may be exceptions and applicants should check
the details in annex 2 to this Guide.

Work Package

A work package is a major sub-division of the proposed project with a verifiable end-point – normally a
deliverable or a milestone in the overall project.

Work Programme

A formal document of the Commission for the implementation of a specific programme, that sets out the
research objectives and topics to be addressed. It also contains information that is set out further in this
Guide, including the schedule and details of the calls for proposals, indicative budgets, and the evaluation
procedure.

th
25 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Annexes

Annex 1 Timetable and specific information for this call

Annex 2 Evaluation criteria and procedure
Annex 3 Instructions for completing Part A of the proposal
Annex 4 Instructions for drafting Part B of the proposal
Annex 5 Ethical Guidelines for undertaking ICT research in FP7
Annex 6 Pre-proposal check form
Annex 7 ERANET Plus actions

th
26 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Annex 1: Timetable and specific information for this call

• The ICT Work programme provides the essential information for submitting a proposal to this
call. It describes the content of the topics to be addressed, and details on how it will be
implemented. The work programme is available on the CORDIS and Participant Portal call
pages. You must consult this document.

• Indicative timetable for these calls

Please note that:

Call GC closes at 17h Brussels time on 1st December 2011
ICT Call 8 closes at 17h00 Brussels time on 17th January 2012

Publication of call 20th July 2011

Deadline for submission of proposals 1st December 2011
17th January 2012;
17h00 Brussels time
Evaluation of proposals February – March 2012
Evaluation Summary Reports sent to all Early April 2012
proposal coordinators
Invitation letter to successful applicants Mid-April 2012
to launch negotiations with Commission
services
Letters to unsuccessful applicants May 2012
Signature of first grant agreements July 2012

• Further information and help

Call information
Participant Portal http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/
(select tab "FP7 calls")

General sources of help

National Contact Points http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ncp_en.html
FP7 Research enquiries service http://ec.europa.eu/research/enquiries
ICT Information Desk email [email protected]
tel: +32 2 296 8596
fax: +32 2 296 8388
EPSS Help desk tel: +32 2 233 3760
email [email protected]
Ethics Help desk http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/get-support_en.html
(information under "Ethics Help Desk for all FP7 projects")
Risk sharing financing facility http://www.eib.org/rsff

th
27 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

(European Investment Bank)

FP7/ICT Support projects

Idealist partner search project http://www.ideal-ist.net/
IPR helpdesk http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/index.html

Legal documents generally applicable

Decision on the Framework Programme
Rules for Participation
Specific Programmes
Rules for proposal submission, evaluation selection and award

Contractual information
Consortium agreement checklist
Negotiation guidance notes
Financial guidelines
Model Grant agreement

All the above at http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/find-doc_en.html

• Pre-proposal check
The Commission offers a facility to allow a proposer to check on the appropriateness of their
proposed action and the eligibility of the proposal consortium.

A form to request this check on your proposal is supplied as annex 6 of this Guide. This may be
submitted at any time up to four weeks before the close of call, but it is wisest of course make this
check as early as you can in your proposal preparation process.

The advice given by the Commission is strictly informal and non-binding. Only one pre-proposal
check will be carried out per proposal. The advice provided through the pre-proposal check does
not in any way engage the Commission with respect to acceptance or rejection of the proposal
when it is formally submitted at a later stage. The evaluators who later evaluate your proposal will
not be informed of the results of the pre-proposal check, nor even that a pre-proposal check was
carried out. The pre-proposal service is not intended to assist with the identification of possible
partners for your consortium.

Although this pre-proposal assessment service is entirely optional it is highly recommended to use
this facility. Any proposal can always be submitted directly to the call without a pre-proposal check.

• Address for pre-proposal check

Please email your pre-proposal check form to the address corresponding to the call topic which
you have selected:

ICT CALL 8
Objectives Pre-proposal email
1.1 Future Networks [email protected]
1.2 Cloud Computing, Internet of Services and Advanced [email protected]
Software Engineering
1.4 Trustworthy ICT [email protected]
1.6 Future Internet Research and Experimentation (FIRE) [email protected]

th
28 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

(e)
3.1 Very advanced nanoelectronic components: design, [email protected]
engineering, technology and manufacturability
3.5 Core and disruptive photonic technologies (c) [email protected]
4.4 Intelligent Information Management [email protected]
5.7 Support to the early implementation of the Joint [email protected]
Programming Initiative (JPI) 'More Years – Better Lives –
the Challenges and Opportunities of Demographic Change'
6.1 Smart energy grids [email protected]
6.7 Cooperative systems for energy efficient and [email protected]
sustainable mobility
8.1 Technology-Enhanced Learning [email protected]
11.1 Pre-Commercial Procurement Actions [email protected]

ICT CALL GREEN CARS

Objectives Pre-proposal email
6-8 ICT for fully electric vehicles (h) [email protected]

th
29 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Annex 2: Evaluation criteria and procedures to be applied to Coordination action

proposals in this call

1. General
All eligible proposals will be evaluated by independent experts.

• Commission staff ensures that the process is fair, and in line with the principles contained in
the Commission's rules1.

• Experts perform evaluations on a personal basis, not as representatives of their employer, their
country or any other entity. They are expected to be independent, impartial and objective, and
to behave throughout in a professional manner. They sign an appointment letter, including a
confidentiality and conflict of interest declaration before beginning their work. Confidentiality
rules must be adhered to at all times, before, during and after the evaluation.

In addition, an independent expert or experts may be appointed by the Commission to observe the
evaluation process from the point of view of its working and execution. The role of the observer(s)
is to give independent advice to the Commission on the conduct and fairness of the evaluation
sessions, on the way in which the experts apply the evaluation criteria, and on ways in which the
procedures could be improved. The observer(s) will not express views on the proposals under
examination or the experts’ opinions on the proposals.

2. Before the evaluation

On receipt by the Commission, proposals are registered and acknowledged and their contents
entered into a database to support the evaluation process. Eligibility criteria for each proposal are
also checked by Commission staff before the evaluation begins. Proposals which do not fulfil these
criteria will not be included in the evaluation.

For this call a proposal will only be considered eligible if it meets all of the following conditions:

• It is received by the Commission via the EPSS before the deadline given in the call fiche
• It involves at least the minimum number of participants given in the call fiche
• It is complete (i.e. both the requested administrative forms and the proposal description are
present)
• The content of the proposal relates to the topics and funding schemes, including any special
conditions, set out in the relevant parts of the work programme

Proposal in which the Part B pdf file has been password-protected or for which printing has been
disabled will be considered as failing the eligibility conditions under the third bullet point.

There are additional eligibility conditions for ERANET Plus proposals in ICT Call 8, which are
described in the fourth general annex of the Cooperation Workprogramme; an extract from which is
included as Annex 7 of this Guide

There are additional eligibility conditions for CA proposals in the ICT Call 8 objective ICT-2011.5.7
"More years, better lives – Challenges and opportunities of demographic change". See ICT
Workprogramme Appendix 7

1
Rules on submission of proposals, and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures [available on CORDIS]

th
30 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

The Commission establishes a list of experts capable of evaluating the proposals that have been
received. The list is drawn up to ensure:

• A high level of expertise;

• An appropriate range of competencies;

Provided that the above conditions can be satisfied, other factors are also taken into consideration:

• An appropriate balance between academic and industrial expertise and users;

• A reasonable gender balance;
• A reasonable distribution of geographical origins;
• Regular rotation of experts

In constituting the lists of experts, the Commission also takes account of their abilities to appreciate
the industrial and/or societal dimension of the proposed work. Experts must also have the
appropriate language skills required for the proposals to be evaluated.

Commission staff allocates proposals to individual experts, taking account of the fields of expertise
of the experts, and avoiding conflicts of interest.

3. Evaluation of proposals
At the beginning of the evaluation, experts will be briefed on the evaluation procedure, the experts’
responsibilities, the issues involved in the particular area/objective, and other relevant material
(including the integration of the international cooperation dimension).

The proposal will be evaluated against pre-determined evaluation criteria.

Evaluation criteria applicable to

Coordination actions or ERA-NET Plus actions
S/T QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION IMPACT

“Scientific and/or “Quality and efficiency of the “Potential impact through the
technological excellence implementation and the development, dissemination
(relevant to the topics addressed management” and use of project results”
by the call)”

• Soundness of concept, and • Appropriateness of the • Contribution, at the European

quality of objectives management structure and and/or international level, to the
procedures expected impacts listed in the
• Contribution to the coordination work programme under
of high quality research • Quality and relevant relevant topic/activity
experience of the individual
• Quality and effectiveness of the participants • Appropriateness of measures
coordination mechanisms and for spreading excellence,
associated work plan • Quality of the consortium as a exploiting results and
• (ERA-NET Plus only) whole (including disseminating knowledge
Governance structure complementarity, balance) through engagement with
stakeholders and the public at
• Appropriateness of the large
allocation and justification of
the resources to be committed • (ERA-NET Plus only) Key
(staff, equipment….) actors, durable cooperation

• (ERA-NET Plus only) Pooling

of resources

th
31 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Additional sub-criteria (bullet points) apply to proposals in the ICT Call 8 objective ICT-2011.5.7
"More years, better lives – Challenges and opportunities of demographic change. See ICT
Workprogramme Appendix 7.

Evaluation scores will be awarded for each of the three criteria, not for the sub-criteria (bullet
points). These sub-criteria are issues which the expert should consider in the assessment of that
criterion. They also act as reminders of issues to raise later during the discussions of the proposal.

The relevance of a proposal will be considered in relation to the topic(s) of the work programme
open in a given call, and to the objectives of a call. These aspects will be integrated in the
application of the criterion "S/T quality", and the first sub-criterion under "Impact" respectively.
When a proposal is partially relevant because it only marginally addresses the topic(s) of the call,
or if only part of the proposal addresses the topic(s), this condition will be reflected in the scoring of
the first criterion. Proposals that are clearly not relevant to a call ("out of scope") will be rejected
on eligibility grounds.

Each criterion will be scored out of 5. Half marks can be given.

The scores indicate the following with respect to the criterion under examination:

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.

No weightings will be applied.

Thresholds will be applied to the scores. The threshold for individual criteria will be 3. The overall
threshold, applying to the sum of the three individual scores, will be 10.

Conflicts of interest: Under the terms of their appointment letter, experts must declare beforehand
any known conflicts of interest, and must immediately inform a Commission staff member if one
becomes apparent during the course of the evaluation. The Commission will take whatever action
is necessary to remove any conflict.

Confidentiality: The appointment letter also requires experts to maintain strict confidentiality with
respect to the whole evaluation process. They must follow any instruction given by the Commission
to ensure this. Under no circumstance may an expert attempt to contact an applicant on his own
account, either during the evaluation or afterwards.

th
32 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

4. Individual evaluation
The first stage (individual evaluation) will be carried out on the premises of the experts concerned
("remotely").

Each proposal will first be assessed independently by three or more experts, chosen by the
Commission from the pool of experts taking part in this evaluation. At this first step the experts are
acting individually; they do not discuss the proposal with each other, nor with any third party. The
experts record their individual opinions in an Individual Evaluation Report (IER), giving scores
and also comments against the evaluation criteria.

When scoring proposals, experts must only apply the above evaluation criteria.

Experts will assess and mark the proposal exactly as it is described and presented. They do not
make any assumptions or interpretations about the project in addition to what is in the proposal.

Concise but explicit justifications will be given for each score. Recommendations for improvements
to be discussed as part of a possible negotiation phase will be given, if needed.

The experts will also indicate whether, in their view, the proposal deals with sensitive ethical
issues,

Signature of the IER also entails a declaration that the expert has no conflict of interest in
evaluating the particular proposal.

Scope of the call: It is possible that a proposal is found to be out of scope of the call during the
course of the individual evaluation, and therefore not relevant. If an expert suspects that this may
be the case, a Commission staff member will be informed immediately, and the views of the other
experts will be sought. If the general view is that the main part of the proposal is not relevant to the
topics of the call, the proposal will be withdrawn from the evaluation, and the proposal will be
deemed ineligible.

5. Consensus meeting
Once all the experts to whom a proposal has been assigned have completed their IER, the
evaluation progresses to a consensus assessment, representing their common views.

This entails a consensus meeting to discuss the scores awarded and to prepare comments.

The consensus discussion is moderated by a representative of the Commission. The role of the
moderator is to seek to arrive at a consensus between the individual views of experts without any
prejudice for or against particular proposals or the organisations involved, and to ensure a
confidential, 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. They also come to a common view on the questions of scope if necessary

The consensus group will also suggest questions to be asked during the hearing, if one is foreseen
(see below)

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 may ask up to three
additional experts to examine the proposal.

th
33 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Outcome of consensus: The outcome of the consensus step is the Consensus Report (CR). This
will be signed (either on paper, or electronically) by all experts, or as a minimum, by the rapporteur
and the moderator. 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.

Ethical issues (above threshold proposals): If one1 or more experts have noted that there are
ethical issues touched on by the proposal, and the proposal is considered to be above threshold,
the relevant box on the consensus report (CR) will be ticked and an Ethical Issues Report (EIR)
completed, stating the nature of the ethical issues. The EIR will be signed by the Commission
moderator and one member of the consensus group (normally, the proposal rapporteur).

The Commission will take the necessary steps to assure the quality of the consensus reports, with
particular attention given to clarity, consistency, and appropriate level of detail. If important
changes are necessary, the reports will be referred back to the experts concerned.

The signing 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 may give the experts the previous evaluation summary
report (see below) following the consensus stage. 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.

6. Panel review
This is the final step involving the independent experts. It allows them to formulate their
recommendations to the Commission having had an overview of the results of the consensus step.

The panel comprises experts involved at the consensus step with the experts who reviewed the
other proposals in the area.

The main task of the panel is to examine and compare the consensus reports in a given area, to
check on the consistency of the marks applied during the consensus discussions and, where
necessary, propose a new set of scores.

The tasks of the panel will also include:

• resolving cases where a minority view was recorded in the consensus report
• recommending a priority order for proposals with the same score
• making recommendations on possible clustering or combination of proposals.

The panel is chaired by the Commission. The Commission will ensure fair and equal treatment of
the proposals in the panel discussions. A panel rapporteur will be appointed to draft the panel’s
advice. A ranked list will be drawn up for every indicative budget as shown in the call fiche. The
panel can deal with one or more ranked lists for the proposals under evaluation, following the
scoring systems indicated above.

Priority order for proposals with the same score

As part of the evaluation by independent experts, a panel review will recommend one or more
ranked lists for the proposals under evaluation, following the scoring systems indicated above. A
ranked list will be drawn up for every indicative budget shown in the call fiche.

1
Exceptionally for this issue, no consensus is required.

th
34 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

If necessary, the panel will determine a priority order for proposals which have been awarded the
same score within a ranked list. Whether or not such a prioritisation is carried out will depend on
the available budget or other conditions set out in the call fiche. The following approach will be
applied successively for every group of ex aequo proposals requiring prioritisation, starting with the
highest scored group, and continuing in descending order:

(i) Proposals that address relevant topics not otherwise covered by more highly-rated
proposals will be considered to have the highest priority.

(ii) These proposals will themselves be prioritised according to the scores they have been
awarded for the criterion impact. When these scores are equal, priority will be based on
scores for the criterion scientific and/or technological excellence. If necessary, any further
prioritisation will be based on other appropriate characteristics, to be decided by the panel,
related to the contribution of the proposal to the European Research Area and/or general
objectives mentioned in the work programme (e.g. presence of SMEs, international co-
operation, public engagement).

(iii) The method described in (ii) will then be applied to the remaining ex aequos in the
group.

The outcome of the panel meeting is a report recording, principally:

• An Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) for each proposal, including, where relevant, a
report of any ethical issues raised;
• A list of proposals passing all thresholds, along with a final score for each proposal passing
the thresholds and the panel recommendations for priority order;
• A list of evaluated proposals having failed one or more thresholds;
• A list of any proposals having been found ineligible;
• A summary of the deliberations of the panel.

If the panel has considered proposals submitted to various parts of a call (e.g. different funding
schemes, or different topics that have been allocated distinct indicative budgets in the work
programme), the report may accordingly contain multiple priority lists.

The panel report is signed by at least three panel experts and the Commission chairperson.

A copy of the Evaluation Summary Report will be sent to each proposal coordinator.

7. Ethics Review of project proposals

An ethics review of above-threshold proposals may be organised by the Commission. The Ethics
Review is carried out by independent experts with a special expertise on ethics. Reviewing
research projects on ethical grounds at the EU level is a legal requirement under FP7. The Review
evaluates aspects of the design and methodology of the proposed research such as intervention
on humans, use of animals, data protection issues, terms of participation of children and vulnerable
populations groups.

The Panel drafts an Ethics Review Report that summarises its opinion on the ethical soundness of
the project proposal under consideration. The requirements put forward by the Panel are taken into
account in any subsequent negotiations on the grant agreement, and may lead to obligatory
provisions in the conduct of the research.

For additional information on the Ethics Review procedure see:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=73

th
35 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Annex 3: Instructions for completing Part A of the proposal

Proposals in this call must be submitted electronically, using the Commission’s Electronic Proposal
Submission System (EPSS). The procedure is summarised in section 3 of this guide.

In Part A you are asked for certain administrative details that will be used in the evaluation and
further processing of your proposal. Section A1 gives a snapshot of your proposal, section A2
concerns the participants in the consortium, while section A3 deals with money matters. Details of
the work you intend to carry out will be described in Part B (see annex 4 of this guide).

Please note:
• The coordinator fills in the sections A1 and A3.
• Participants already identified at the time of proposal submission (including the coordinator)
each fill in their respective section A2.
• Subcontractors, if any, do not fill in a section A2 and are not listed separately in section A3
(They are described in Part B)

When you complete section A3, please make sure that:

• Numbers are always rounded to the nearest whole number

• You have inserted zeros ("0") where there are no costs or funding figures. Leaving cells empty
will block the submission of your proposal
• All costs are given in Euros (not thousands of Euros)
• Costs do not include Value Added Tax

The following notes are for information only. They should assist you in completing the A-part of
your proposal. On-line guidance will also be available. The precise questions and options
presented on EPSS may differ slightly from these below.

th
36 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

COORDINATION ACTIONS

Section A1: Summary

The short title or acronym will be used to identify your proposal efficiently in this call. It should be of no more than 20
Proposal characters (use standard alphabet and numbers only; no symbols or special characters please).
Acronym
The same acronym should appear on each page of Part B of your proposal.

For each type of Collaborative Projects, please refer to the work programme.
Collaborative
Projects

The title should be no longer than 200 characters and should be understandable to the non-specialist in your field.
Proposal
Title

Insert the estimated duration of the project in full months.

Duration in
months

The call identifier is the reference number given in the call or part of the call you are addressing, as indicated in the
Call (part) publication of the call in the Official Journal of the European Union, and on the Participant Portal call page.
identifier
[The call identifier is pre-filled in the forms from the EPSS. If you do not have the correct identifier on your
forms, you have registered for the wrong call. Discard this registration and register again].

Topic code(s) Please refer to the topic codes /objectives listed in the work programme call fiche.
most relevant
to your All activities and topics of FP7 have been assigned unique codes, which are used in the processing of data on
proposal proposals and subsequent contracts. The codes are organised hierarchically.

The choice of the first topic code will be limited in the drop-down menu to one of the topics open in this call. Select
the code corresponding to the topic most relevant to your proposal.

The choice for the second code is also limited to topics open in the call in question. Enter a second code if your
proposal also addresses another of these. Select ‘none’ if this is not the case.

Select a third code if your proposal is also relevant to another theme. This time, the available codes will simply
correspond to broad themes. Select ‘none’ if this is not the case.

Please enter a number of keywords that you consider sufficient to characterise the scope of your proposal.
Free
Keywords There is a limit of 100 characters.

The abstract should, at a glance, provide the reader with a clear understanding of the objectives of the proposal, how
Abstract they will be achieved, and their relevance to the Work Programme. This summary will be used as the short
description of the proposal in the evaluation process and in communications to the programme management
committees and other interested parties. It must therefore be short and precise and should not contain confidential
information. Please use plain typed text, avoiding formulae and other special characters. If the proposal is written in
a language other than English, please include an English version of the proposal abstract in Part B.

There is a limit of 2000 characters. Exceeding this limit may block the submission of your proposal !

A ‘similar’ proposal or contract is one that differs from the current one in only minor ways, and in which some of the
Similar present consortium members are involved.
proposals or
signed
contracts

th
37 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Section A2/ Participants

The number allocated by the consortium to the participant for this proposal. The co-ordinator of a proposal is
Participant always number one.
number

The Participant Identification Code (PIC) enables organisations to take advantage of the Participant Portal.
Participant Organisations who have received a PIC from the Commission are encouraged to use it when submitting proposals.
Identification By entering a PIC, parts of section A2 will be filled in automatically. An online tool to search for existing PICs and
Code the related organisations is available at http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/searchorganisations
Organisations not yet having a PIC are strongly encouraged to register before submitting the proposal and insert in
section A2 the temporary PIC received at the end of the registration process.

For Public Law Body, it is the name under which your organisation is registered in the Resolution text, Law,
Legal name Decree/Decision establishing the Public Entity, or in any other document established at the constitution of the
Public Law Body;

For Private Law Body, it is the name under which your organisation is registered in the national Official Journal
(or equivalent) or in the national company register.

For a natural person, it is for e.g. Mr Adam JOHNSON, Mrs Anna KUZARA, and Ms Alicia DUPONT.

Organisation
Choose an abbreviation of your Organisation Legal Name, only for use in this proposal and in all relating
Short Name documents.

This short name should not be more than 20 characters exclusive of special characters (./;…), for e.g. CNRS and
not C.N.R.S. It should be preferably the one as commonly used, for e.g. IBM and not Int.Bus.Mac.

For Public and Private Law Bodies, it is the address of the entity’s Head Office.
Legal address
For Individuals it is the Official Address.

If your address is specified by an indicator of location other than a street name and number, please insert this
instead under the "street name" field and "N/A" under the "number" field.

Non-profit organisation is a legal entity qualified as such when it is recognised by national or, international law.
Non-profit
organisation

Public body means any legal entity established as such by national law, and international organisations.
Public body

Research organisation means a legal entity established as a non-profit organisation which carries out research or
Research technological development as one of its main objectives.
organisation

NACE means " Nomenclature des Activités économiques dans la Communauté Européenne".
NACE code
Please select one activity from the list that best describes your professional and economic ventures. If you are
involved in more than one economic activity, please select the one activity that is most relevant in the context of
your contribution to the proposed project. For more information on the methodology, structure and full content of
NACE (rev. 1.1) classification please consult EUROSTAT at:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST
_CLS_DLD&StrNom=NACE_1_1&StrLanguageCode=EN&StrLayoutCode=
HIERARCHIC .

th
38 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

SMEs are micro, small and medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Recommendation 2003/361/EC in the
Small and version of 6 May 2003. The full definition and a guidance booklet can be found at
Medium-Sized http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/index_en.htm
Enterprises
To find out if your organisation corresponds to the definition of an SME you can use the on-line tool at
(SMEs) http://ec.europa.eu/research/sme-techweb/index_en.cfm

Two participants (legal entities) are dependent on each other where there is a controlling relationship between
Dependencies them:
with (an) other
participant(s) − A legal entity is under the same direct or indirect control as another legal entity (SG);
or
− A legal entity directly or indirectly controls another legal entity (CLS);
or
− A legal entity is directly or indirectly controlled by another legal entity (CLB).
Control:
Legal entity A controls legal entity B if:

− A, directly or indirectly, holds more than 50% of the nominal value of the issued share capital or a
majority of the voting rights of the shareholders or associates of B,
or
− A, directly or indirectly, holds in fact or in law the decision-making powers in B.

The following relationships between legal entities shall not in themselves be deemed to constitute controlling
relationships:

(a) the same public investment corporation, institutional investor or venture-capital company has a direct
or indirect holding of more than 50 % of the nominal value of the issued share capital or a majority of
voting rights of the shareholders or associates;
(b) the legal entities concerned are owned or supervised by the same public body.

According to the explanation above mentioned, please insert the appropriate abbreviation according to the list
Character of below to characterise the relation between your organisation and the other participant(s) you are related with:
dependence
• SG: Same group: if your organisation and the other participant are controlled by the same third party;
• CLS: Controls: if your organisation controls the other participant;
• CLB: Controlled by: if your organisation is controlled by the other participant.

It is the main scientist or team leader in charge of the proposal for the participant. For participant number 1 (the
Contact point coordinator), this will be the person the Commission will contact concerning this proposal (e.g. for additional
information, invitation to hearings, sending of evaluation results, convocation to negotiations).

Please choose one of the following: Prof., Dr., Mr., Mrs, Ms.
Title

This information is required for statistical and mailing purposes. Indicate F or M as appropriate.
Sex

Please insert the full numbers including country and city/area code. Example +32-2-2991111.
Phone and fax
numbers

th
39 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Section A3/Budget

Indirect Costs Indirect costs are all those eligible costs which cannot be identified by the participant as being directly attributed to
the project but which can be identified and justified by its accounting system as being incurred in direct relationship
with the eligible direct costs attributed to the project. They may not include any eligible direct costs.

Method of Summary description (as displayed on EPSS)

calculating Participants who have an analytical accounting system that can identify and group their indirect costs in
indirect costs accordance with the eligibility criteria (e.g. exclude non-eligible costs) must report their actual indirect costs (or
choose the 20% flat rate option referred to below).

For the purpose of calculating the actual indirect costs, a participant is allowed to use a simplified method of
calculation of its full indirect eligible costs.

Optionally, participants may opt for a flat rate for indirect costs of 20% of the direct costs (minus subcontracting
and third party costs not incurred on the premises of the participant.

A specific flat rate of 60% of the direct costs is foreseen for non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher
education establishments, research organisations and SMEs which are unable to identify with certainty their real
indirect costs for the project.

For Coordination and Support actions, whichever method is used, the reimbursement of indirect eligible costs
may not exceed 7% of the direct eligible costs, excluding the direct eligible costs for subcontracting and the costs
of reimbursement of resources made available by third parties which are not used on the premises of the
participant.

Further guidance

In FP7 all departments, faculties or institutes which are part of the same legal entity must use the same system of
cost calculation (unless a special clause foreseeing a derogation for a particular department/institute is included in
the grant agreement). Under FP7, there are no cost reporting models.

1. Participants which have an analytical accounting system that can identify and group their indirect costs (pool of
costs) in accordance with the eligibility criteria (e.g. exclude non-eligible costs) must report their actual indirect
costs (or choose the 20% flat rate option under 2. below). This method is the same as the "full cost" model used in
previous Framework Programmes.

For the purpose of calculating the actual indirect costs, a participant is allowed to use a simplified method of
calculation of its full indirect eligible costs. The simplified method is a way of declaring indirect costs which applies
to organisations which do not aggregate their indirect costs at a detailed level (centre, department), but can
aggregate their indirect costs at the level of the legal entity.

The simplified method can be used if the organisation does not have an accounting system with a detailed cost
allocation. The method has to be in accordance with their usual accounting and management principles and
practices; it does not involve necessarily the introduction of a new method just for FP7 purposes. Participants are
allowed to use it, provided this simplified approach is based on actual costs derived from the financial accounts of
the last closed accounting year.

There is no "standard model"; each legal entity will use its own system. The minimum requirements for it to be
considered a simplified method for FP7 purposes are the following:

- the system must allow the participant to identify and remove its direct ineligible costs (VAT, etc.);
- it must at least allow for the allocation of the overheads at the level of the legal entity to the individual projects by
using a fair "driver" (e.g. total productive hours);
- the system applied and the costs declared according to it should follow the normal accounting principles and
practices of the participant. Therefore, if the system used by a participant is more "refined" than the "minimum"
requirements mentioned here, it is that system which should be used when declaring costs.

Example: if a participant's accounting system distinguishes between different overheads rates according to the
type of activity (research, teaching...), then the overheads declared in an FP7 grant agreement should follow this
practice and refer only to the concerned activities (research, demonstration...)

The simplified method does not require previous registration or certification by the Commission.

2. Optionally, participants may opt to declare their actual direct costs plus a flat rate for indirect costs of 20% of the

th
40 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

direct costs (minus subcontracting and third party costs not incurred on the premises of the participant). This flat
rate is open to any participant whatever the accounting system it uses. Accordingly, when this option is chosen,
there is no need for certification of the indirect costs, only of the direct ones.

3. Also, a specific flat rate is foreseen for certain types of organisations.

The use of this flat rate is subject to three cumulative conditions :

(i) Status of the organisation

The flat rate is reserved to:
- non-profit public bodies
- secondary and higher education establishments
- research organisations
- SMEs

(ii) Accounting system of the organisation

The flat rate is foreseen for the organisations which are unable to identify with certainty their real indirect costs for
the project. How will it be proved that an organisation is unable to identify with certainty their real indirect costs for
the project? The participant (for example, an SME) does not have to change its accounting
system or its usual accounting principles. If its accounting system can identify overall overheads but does not
allocate them to project costs, then the participant can use this flat rate if the other conditions are fulfilled.
Example:
A University, which in FP6 has used the "additional cost" basis because its accounting system did not allow for the
share of their direct and indirect costs to the project to be distinguished may under FP7:
- either opt for the 60% flat rate, or
- introduce a cost accounting system "simplified method" by which a basic allocation per project of the overhead
costs of the legal entity will be established, or
- introduce a full analytical accounting system.

Following this, an organisation which used the "full cost" model under the Sixth Framework Programme is
presumed to be in a situation to be able to identify the real indirect costs and allocate them to the projects.
Accordingly, this organisation would not in principle be able to opt for the 60% flat rate for FP7.

An organisation which can identify the real indirect costs but does not have a system to allocate these indirect
costs can opt for this 60% flat rate. The choice of this specific flat rate lies within the responsibility of the
participant. If a subsequent audit shows that the above-mentioned cumulative conditions are not fulfilled, all
projects where this participant is involved might be reviewed.

(iii) Type of funding scheme

The flat rate is reserved to funding schemes which include research and technological development and
demonstration activities: Network of Excellence and Collaborative projects (including research for the benefit of
specific groups – in particular SMEs). The basis for the calculation of the flat rate excludes the costs for
subcontracting and the costs of resources made available by third parties which are not used on the premises of
the participant because in these two cases, the indirect costs are not incurred by the participant but by the
subcontractor or the third party. When a participant opts for the specific flat rate of 60 % for its first participation
under FP7 it can opt afterwards for the actual indirect costs system for subsequent participations. This change
does not affect previous grant agreement. After this change, this organisation cannot opt again for a flat rate
system (either 60% or 20% flat rate).

th
41 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Indirect Costs - Decision Tree

Do either of these conditions apply? (1) your organisation possesses an analytical accounting system, or (2) you will declare
overhead rates using a simplified method

YES No

Real indirect costs or costs calculated using a simplified

method

or

20% of total direct eligible costs (1)

or

60% of total direct eligible costs (1), for :

- Non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education

establishments, research organisations and SMEs

- When participating in funding schemes which include

research and technological development

Coordination and support actions :

In any case Maximum 7% of the direct eligible costs (1)

(1) excluding direct eligible costs for subcontracting and the costs of reimbursement of resources made available
by third parties which are not used on the premises of the beneficiary

International Cooperation Partner Country means a third country which the Commission classifies as a low-
International income, lower-middle income or upper-middle-income country and which is identified as such in Annex I to the
Cooperation work programmes.
Partner
Country (ICPC)

Lump sum
funding Legal entities established in an ICPC may opt for lump sums. In that case the contribution is based on the amounts
shown below, multiplied by the total number of person-years for the project requested by the ICPC legal entity.
method
• Low-income ICPC: 8,000 Euro/researcher/year
• Lower middle income ICPC: 9,800 Euro/researcher/year
• Upper middle income ICPC 20,700 Euro/researcher/year

The maximum EU contribution is calculated by applying the normal upper funding limits shown under "requested
EU contribution". This amount is all inclusive, covering support towards both the direct and the indirect costs.

More information on ICPC lump sums can be found in the section II.18 of the "Guide to financial issues"
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/find-doc_en.html

th
42 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Coordination activities may cover activities such as the organisation of events - including conferences, meetings,
Type of workshops or seminars -, related studies, exchanges of personnel, exchange and dissemination of good practices,
Activity and, if necessary, the definition, organisation and management of joint or common initiatives, together with
management of the action.

Management activities include the maintenance of the consortium agreement, if it is obligatory, the overall legal,
ethical, financial and administrative management including for each of the participants obtaining the certificates on
the financial statements or on the methodology and any other management activities foreseen in the proposal
except coordination of research and technological development activities.

Personnel
costs Personnel costs are only the costs of the actual hours worked by the persons directly carrying out work under the
project and shall reflect the total remuneration: salaries plus social security charges (holiday pay, pension
contribution, health insurance, etc.) and other statutory costs included in the remuneration. Such persons must:
– be directly hired by the participant in accordance with its national legislation,

– be working under the sole technical supervision and responsibility of the latter, and

– be remunerated in accordance with the normal practices of the participant.

Participants may opt to declare average personnel costs if certified in accordance with a methodology approved by
the Commission and consistent with the management principles and usual accounting practices of the participant.
Average personnel costs charged by a participant having provided a certification on the methodology are deemed
not to significantly differ from actual personnel costs.

Sub-
contracting A subcontractor is a third party which has entered into an agreement on business conditions with one or more
participants, in order to carry out part of the work of the project without the direct supervision of the participant and
without a relationship of subordination.

Where it is necessary for the participants to subcontract certain elements of the work to be carried out, the
following conditions must be fulfilled:

- subcontracts may only cover the execution of a limited part of the project;

- recourse to the award of subcontracts must be duly justified in Part B of the proposal having regard to
the nature of the project and what is necessary for its implementation;

- recourse to the award of subcontract by a participant may not affect the rights and obligations of the
participants regarding background and foreground;

- Part B of the proposal must indicate the task to be subcontracted and an estimation of the costs;

Any subcontract, the costs of which are to be claimed as an eligible cost, must be awarded according to the
principles of best value for money (best price-quality ratio), transparency and equal treatment. Framework
contracts between a participant and a subcontractor, entered into prior to the beginning of the project that are
according to the participant's usual management principles may also be accepted.

Participants may use external support services for assistance with minor tasks that do not represent per se project
tasks as identified in Part B of the proposal.

If applicable, actual direct costs and real overhead costs of third parties that make available to the proposal
resources otherwise unavailable within the consortium, can also be included under the category of subcontracting
costs (provided that these costs are not related to proposal's core tasks).

Other direct
costs Means direct costs not covered by the above mentioned categories of costs.

th
43 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Total Budget A sum of all the eligible costs, under the respective types of activity.

Please note: The

term "Total
Budget" does not
mean your
requested EU
contribution

Requested EU
contribution The requested EU contribution shall be determined by applying the upper funding limits indicated below, per
activity and per participant to the costs accepted by the Commission, or to the flat rates or lump sums.

Maximum reimbursement rates of eligible costs

• Research and technological development = 50% or 75%*

• Demonstration activities = 50%
• Other activities (including management) = 100%

(*) For participants that are non profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research
organisations and SMEs.

Receipts of the project may arise from:

Total Receipts
Please note: The a) Financial transfers or contributions in kind free of charge to the participant from third parties:
term "Total
Receipts" does i. shall be considered a receipt of the project if they have been contributed by the third
not mean your party specifically to be used on the project.
requested EU
contribution ii. shall not be considered a receipt of the project if their use is at the management
discretion of the participant.

b) Income generated by the project:

i. shall be considered receipts for the participant when generated by actions undertaken in carrying
out the project and from the sale of assets purchased under the grant agreement up to the value of
the cost initially charged to the project by the participant;

ii. shall not be considered a receipt for the participant when generated from the use of foreground
resulting from the project.

The Community financial contribution may not have the purpose or effect of producing a profit for the participants.
For this reason, the total requested EU funding plus receipts cannot exceed the total eligible costs.

th
44 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Annex 4: Instructions for drafting Part B of the proposal

Coordination actions (CA)

ERANET Plus actions

A description of this funding scheme is given in section 2 of this Guide for Applicants. Please
examine this carefully before preparing your proposal.

This annex provides a template to help you structure your proposal. An electronic version of this
template is obtained via the EPSS. It will help you present important aspects of your planned work
in a way that will enable the experts to make an effective assessment against the evaluation
criteria (see annex 2). Sections 1, 2 and 3 each correspond to an evaluation criterion. The sub-
sections (1.1, 1.2 etc.) correspond to the sub-criteria.

Remember, please keep to maximum page lengths where these are specified. Information given
on excess pages may be disregarded. The minimum font size allowed is 11 points. All margins
(top, bottom, left, right) should be at least 15 mm (not including any footers or headers).

Even where no page limits are given, it is in your interest to keep your text concise, since over-long
proposals are rarely viewed in a positive light by the experts.

Title Page

Proposal full title

Proposal acronym
Type of funding scheme:
In this case – Coordination action (CA)/ERANET Plus action
Work programme topic addressed
(if more than one, indicate their order of importance to the project)
Name of the coordinating person

List of participants:

Participant no. * Participant organisation name Part. short Country

name
1 (Coordinator)
2
3

* Please use the same participant numbering as that used in Proposal submission forms A2

Proposal abstract
(copied from Part A, if not in English include an English translation)

Table of Contents

th
45 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Proposal

Section 1: Scientific and/or technical quality, relevant to the topics addressed by the call

1.1 Concept and objectives

Explain the concept of your project. What are the main ideas that led you to propose this work?
Describe in detail the project objectives. Show how they relate to the topics addressed by the call,
which you should explicitly identify. The objectives should be those achievable within the project,
not through subsequent development. They should be stated in a measurable and verifiable form,
including through the milestones that will be indicated under section 1.3 below.

1.2 Contribution to the co-ordination of high quality research

Indicate how the area addressed by your project will benefit from the co-ordination (including
networking) that you propose.

1.3 Quality and effectiveness of the coordination mechanisms and associated workpackages
A detailed work plan should be presented, broken down into work packages1 (WPs) which should
follow the logical phases of the implementation of the project, and include consortium management
and assessment of progress and results. (Please note that your overall approach to management will
be described later, in section 2).

Please present your plans as follows:

i) Describe the overall strategy of the work plan (Maximum length – one page)
ii) Show the timing of the different WPs and their components (Gantt chart or similar).
iii) Provide a detailed work description broken down into work packages:
• Work package list (please use table 1.3a);
• Deliverables list (please use table 1.3b);
• List of milestones (please use table 1.3c)
• Description of each work package (please use table 1.3d)
• Summary effort table (1.3e)
iv) Provide a graphical presentation of the components showing their interdependencies (Pert
diagram or similar)
v) Describe any significant risks, and associated contingency plans

Note: The number of work packages used must be appropriate to the complexity of the work and the
overall value of the proposed project. The planning should be sufficiently detailed to justify the
proposed effort and allow progress monitoring by the Commission.

1.4 (ERANET Plus actions only) Complementary information on governance structure

Indicate how the management will be supported by a suitable governance structure involving the
participating organisations at an appropriate level.

(Maximum length for the whole of Section 1 –fifteen pages. This limit does not include the Gantt chart, Pert
diagram or tables 1.3a-e)

1
A work package is a major sub-division of the proposed project with a verifiable end-point - normally a deliverable or
a milestone in the overall project.

th
46 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Table 1.3a: Template - Work package list

Work package list

Work Work package title Type of Lead Lead Person- Start End
package activity2 partic partic. months4 month5 month5
No1 no.3 short name

TOTAL

1
Workpackage number: WP 1 – WP n.
2
Please indicate one activity per work package:
COORD = Coordination activities; MGT = Management of the consortium
3
Number of the participant leading the work in this work package.
4
The total number of person-months allocated to each work package.
5
Measured in months from the project start date (month 1).
th
47 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Table 1.3b: Template - Deliverables List

List of Deliverables

Del. no. 1 Deliverable name WP no. Nature2 Dissemi- Delivery

nation date4
level
3 (proj.
month)

1
Deliverable numbers in order of delivery dates. Please use the numbering convention <WP number>.<number
of deliverable within that WP>. For example, deliverable 4.2 would be the second deliverable from work package 4.
2
Please indicate the nature of the deliverable using one of the following codes:
R = Report, P = Prototype, D = Demonstrator, O = Other
3
Please indicate the dissemination level using one of the following codes:
PU = Public
PP = Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services).
RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services).
CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services).
4
Measured in months from the project start date (month 1).
th
48 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Table 1.3c Template - List of milestones

List of Milestones

Milestones are control points where decisions are needed with regard to the next stage of the
project. For example, a milestone may occur when a major result has been achieved, if its
successful attainment is a required for the next phase of work. Another example would be a point
when the consortium must decide which of several technologies to adopt for further development.

Milestone Milestone Work package(s) Expected date 19 Means of

number name involved verification20

19
Measured in months from the project start date (month 1).
20
Show how you will confirm that the milestone has been attained. Refer to indicators if appropriate. For example: a
laboratory prototype completed and running flawlessly; software released and validated by a user group; field survey
complete and data quality validated.
th
49 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Table 1.3d: Template - Work package description

Work package description

Work package number Start date or starting event:

Work package title
Activity type21
Participant number
Participant short name
Person-months per
participant

Objectives

Description of work (possibly broken down into tasks) and role of partners

Deliverables (brief description) and month of delivery

21
Please indicate one activity per work package:
COORD = Coordination activities; MGT = Management of the consortium
th
50 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Table 1.3e Summary of effort

Summary of effort
A summary of the effort is useful for the evaluators. Please indicate in the table number of person
months over the whole duration of the planned work, for each work package by each participant.
Identify the work-package leader for each WP by showing the relevant person-month figure in bold.

Partic. Partic. short WP1 WP2 WP3 … Total

no. name person
months
1
2
3
etc
Total

th
51 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Section 2. Implementation

2.1 Management structure and procedures

Describe the organisational structure and decision-making mechanisms of the project. Show how
they are matched to the complexity and scale of the project.
(Maximum length for Section 2.1 - five pages)

2.2 Individual participants

For each participant in the proposed project, provide a brief description of the legal entity, the main
tasks they have been attributed, and the previous experience relevant to those tasks. Provide also a
short profile of the individuals who will be undertaking the work.
(Maximum length for Section 2.2: one page per participant. However, where two or more
departments within an organisation have quite distinct roles within the proposal, one page per
department is acceptable.
The maximum length applying to a legal entity composed of several members, each of which is a
separate legal entity (for example an EEIG), is one page per member, provided that the members
have quite distinct roles within the proposal.)

2.3 Consortium as a whole

Describe how the participants collectively constitute a consortium capable of achieving the project
objectives, and how they are suited and are committed to the tasks assigned to them. Show the
complementarity between participants. Explain how the composition of the consortium is well-
balanced in relation to the objectives of the project.

i) Sub-contracting: If any part of the work is to be sub-contracted by the participant responsible for
it, describe the work involved and explain why a sub-contract approach has been chosen for it.
ii) Other countries: If a one or more of the participants requesting EU funding is based outside of
the EU Member states, Associated countries and the list of International Cooperation Partner
Countries22, explain in terms of the project’s objectives why such funding would be essential.
(No maximum length for Section 2.3 – depends on the size and complexity of the consortium)

2.4 Resources to be committed

Describe how the totality of the necessary resources will be mobilised, including any resources that
will complement the EU contribution. Show how the resources will be integrated in a coherent way,
and show how the overall financial plan for the project is adequate.

In addition to the costs indicated on form A3 of the proposal, and the effort shown in section 1.3
above, please identify any other major costs (e.g. equipment). Ensure that the figures stated in Part B
are consistent with these.
(Maximum length for Section 2.4 – two pages)

2.5 (ERANET Plus actions only) Complementary information on pooling of resources

In reference to the applicable work programme, indicate how the proposed ERANET Plus action
pools the necessary resources between national programmes and the Community and represents the
most appropriate type of public funding for this pre-defined area.
(Maximum length for Section 2.5 - one page)

22
See CORDIS web-site, and annex 1 of the work programme.
th
52 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Section 3. Impact

3.1 Expected impacts listed in the work programme

Describe how your project will contribute towards the expected impacts listed in the work
programme in relation to the topic or topics in question. Mention the steps that will be needed to
bring about these impacts. Explain why this contribution requires a European (rather than a national
or local) approach. Indicate how account is taken of other national or international research
activities. Mention any assumptions and external factors that may determine whether the impacts
will be achieved.

3.2 Spreading excellence, exploiting results, disseminating knowledge

Describe the measures you propose for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and
how these will increase the impact of the project. In designing these measures, you should take into
account a variety of communication means and target groups as appropriate (e.g. policy-makers,
interest groups, media and the public at large).

For more information on communication guidance, see http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-

society/science-communication/index_en.htm

3.3 (ERANET Plus actions only) Complementary information on key actors, durable cooperation
Show that the participants are the key actors within their national or regional research systems, and
that the ERANET Plus activities will lay the foundations for a durable cooperation between the
partners involved. Show there a clearly identified and agreed European added value.

(Maximum length for the whole of Section 3 – ten pages)

th
53 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Section 4. Ethical Issues

Describe any ethics issues that may arise in the project. In particular, you should explain the benefit and
burden of the experiments and the effects it may have on the research subject. All countries where research
will be undertaken should be identified. You should be aware of the legal framework that is applicable and
the possible specific conditions that are relevant in each country (EU and non-EU countries alike).

Informed consent: When describing issues relating to informed consent, it will be necessary to
illustrate an appropriate level of ethical sensitivity, and consider issues of insurance, incidental
findings and the consequences of leaving the study.

Clinical Trials: Approvals from national competent authorities are required.

Data protection issues: Avoid the unnecessary collection and use of personal data. Identify the
source of the data, describing whether it is collected as part of the research or is previously collected
data being used. Consider issues of informed consent for any data being used. Describe how
personal identify of the data is protected. Data protection issues require authorisation from the
national data protection authorities.

Use of animals: Where animals are used in research the application of the 3Rs (Replace, Reduce,
Refine) must be convincingly addressed. Numbers of animals should be specified. State what
happens to the animals after the research experiments. The use of animals requires permits and/or
authorisations from the competent national authorities.

Human embryonic stem cells: Research proposals that will involve human embryonic stem cells
(hESC) will have to address all the following specific points:
• the necessity to use hESC in order to achieve the scientific objectives set forth in the
proposal.
• whether the applicants have taken into account the legislation, regulations, ethical rules
and/or codes of conduct in place in the country(ies) where the research using hESC is to
take place, including the procedures for obtaining informed consent;
• the source of the hESC
• the measures taken to protect personal data, including genetic data, and privacy;
• the nature of financial inducements, if any.

Identify the countries where research will be undertaken and which ethical committees and regulatory
organisations will need to be approached during the life of the project.

Include the Ethical issues table below. If you indicate YES to any issue, please identify the pages in the
proposal where this ethical issue is described. If you are sure that none of the issues apply to your proposal,
simply tick the YES box in the last row.

(No maximum length for Section 4 – depends on the number and complexity of the ethical issues involved)

Notes:
1. For further information on ethical issues relevant to ICT, see annex 5 of this Guide
2. Only in exceptional cases will additional information be sought for clarification, which means that any
ethical review will be performed solely on the basis of the information available in your proposal.
3. A dedicated website that aims to provide clear, helpful information on ethics issues is now available at:
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ethics_en.html. The site includes guidance documents on privacy and data
protection, developing countries , informed consent procedures etc.

th
54 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

ETHICAL ISSUES TABLE

YES PAGE
Informed Consent
• Does the proposal involve children?
• Does the proposal involve patients or persons not
able to give consent?
• Does the proposal involve adult healthy
volunteers?
• Does the proposal involve Human Genetic
Material?
• Does the proposal involve Human biological
samples?
• Does the proposal involve Human data collection?
Research on Human embryo/foetus
• Does the proposal involve Human Embryos?
• Does the proposal involve Human Foetal Tissue /
Cells?
• Does the proposal involve Human Embryonic
Stem Cells?
Privacy
• Does the proposal involve processing of genetic
information or personal data (e.g. health, sexual
lifestyle, ethnicity, political opinion, religious or
philosophical conviction)
• Does the proposal involve tracking the location or
observation of people?
Research on Animals
• Does the proposal involve research on animals?
• Are those animals transgenic small laboratory
animals?
• Are those animals transgenic farm animals?
• Are those animals cloned farm animals?
• Are those animals non-human primates?
Research Involving Developing Countries
• Use of local resources (genetic, animal, plant etc)
• Impact on local community
Dual Use
• Research having direct military application
• Research having the potential for terrorist abuse
ICT Implants
• Does the proposal involve clinical trials of ICT
implants?
I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES
APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL

th
55 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Annex 5: Ethical Guidelines for undertaking ICT research in FP7

1. Introduction
In recent years there has been an increase in the importance of ethical issues related to ICT research and
technological developments.

The decision of the European Parliament and the Council concerning FP723 states that research activities
supported by the Framework Programme should respect fundamental ethical principles, including those
reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union24 and take into account opinions of the
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE)25.

Article 15 of the FP7 draft rules of participation26 states that any proposal which contravenes fundamental
ethical principles or which does not fulfil the conditions set out in the specific programme, the
workprogramme or in the call for proposals shall not be selected and may be excluded from the evaluation,
selection and award procedures at any time.

Applications for EU-funded research activities may, if appropriate, include specific tasks or a specific work
package that explicitly addresses ethical concerns (in terms of the research, its conduct and outcomes) and
outlines how ethical issues raised by the proposed research will be handled.

The purpose of this guidance is to assist proposers in identifying potential ethical issues arising from the
proposed ICT research.

2. Conduct of ICT Research

All research areas within ICT of FP7 may raise ethical issues of varying seriousness. Some proposals will be
more sensitive than others. It is likely that new, sensitive applications will come to the fore during the term of
FP7.

2.1 A responsible approach

It is likely that most of the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union27 will be
relevant to the approach adopted by ICT researchers. These principles cover dignity, freedom, equality,
solidarity, citizens’ rights and justice. Proposals must comply with Article 8 of the European Human Rights
Convention28. In particular, given the pervasive and ubiquitous nature of ICT and the many opportunities it
offers, researchers should consider the sensitive implications of their proposals for privacy and autonomy.29
However, researchers should recognise that new dangers associated with the process of ICT research can
exist. They should carry out a prior assessment of risk and identification of precautionary actions proportional
to the potential risk/harm.30

Researchers have a duty to alert public authorities to the ethical and practical implications of the ICT
research outcomes, as and when particular issues become apparent within the research process.7

Researchers should comply with national legislation, European Union legislation, respect international
conventions and declarations and take into account the Opinions of the European Group on Ethics.
However, consideration of ethical issues goes beyond simple compliance with current regulations and laws.

2.2 Privacy and informed consent

The right to privacy and data protection is a fundamental right31 and therefore applicable to ICT research.

23
Decision 1982/2006/EC: Official Journal L412 of 18/12/06
24
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/default_en.htm
25
The EGE is an independent, multidisciplinary body, appointed by the Commission to examine ethical questions arising from science
and new technologies and on this basis to issue Opinions - http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/index_en.htm
26
Official Journal L391 of 30/12/06
27
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
28
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm
29 th
Opinion 10 of EGE - The Ethical Aspects of the 5 Framework Programme ,
http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/docs/opinion10_en.pdf
30
Opinion 20 of EGE – Ethical Aspects of ICT Implants in the Human Body -
http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/docs/avis20_en.pdf
31
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

th
56 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Researchers must be aware that volunteers32 have the right to remain anonymous33. Researchers must
comply with Data Protection legislation34 in the Member State where the research will be carried out
regarding ICT research data that relates to volunteers.

Informed consent is required whenever ICT research involves volunteers in interviews, behavioural
observation, invasive and non-invasive experimentation, and accessing personal data records. The purpose
of informed consent is to empower the individual to make a voluntary informed decision about whether or not
to participate in the research based on knowledge of the purpose, procedures and outcomes of the research.

Before consent is sought, information must be given specifying the alternatives, risks, and benefits for those
involved in a way they understand. When such information has been given, free and informed consent must
be obtained. Depending on the nature of the research, different consent procedures may be used. Special
consideration must be given when volunteers have reduced autonomy or are vulnerable3.

The majority of European citizens view personal privacy as an important issue. Research, for example, on
RFID35 and ICT for healthcare36, is likely to raise privacy issues. Therefore, researchers must ensure that the
manner in which research outcomes are reported does not contravene the right to privacy and data
protection. Furthermore, researchers must carefully evaluate and report the personal privacy implications of
the intended use or potential use of the research outcomes. Wherever possible, they must ensure that
research outcomes do not contravene these fundamental rights.

2.3 Use of animals in ICT research

In accordance with the Amsterdam protocol on animal protection and welfare, animal experiments must be
replaced with alternatives wherever possible. Suffering by animals must be avoided or kept to a minimum.
This particularly applies to animal experiments involving species which are closest to human beings37. Thus
ICT research involving animals should conform to the ethical principles of replacement, reduction, refinement
and minimisation of suffering3.

Proposers must carefully justify animal experiments in cross-science proposals for non-medical objectives.
Furthermore, they should identify the scientific areas which would benefit from knowledge gained through
animal experiments. Proposers must be aware that Member States may have differing and possibly
conflicting interpretations of animal welfare in research, and the research must meet regulations in the
country in which it will be carried out.

3 Specific guidance in some currently sensitive areas

3.1 ICT implants38 and wearable computing
• ICT implants should only be developed if the objective cannot be achieved by less-invasive methods such
as wearable computing devices and RFID tags.
• To the extent that an individual, via an ICT implant or wearable computing device, becomes part of an ICT
network, the operation of this whole network will need to respect privacy and data protection requirements.
• ICT implants in healthcare are, in general, acceptable when the objective is saving lives, restoring health,
or improving the quality of life. They should be treated in the same way as drugs and medical devices.39
• ICT implants to enhance human capabilities should only be developed: to bring individuals into the
“normal” range for the population, if they so wish and give their informed consent; or to improve health

32
“Volunteers” is used to describe all those who are the subjects of research observations, experiments, tests etc.
33 th
Opinion 10 of EGE - The Ethical Aspects of the 5 Framework Programme ,
http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/docs/opinion10_en.pdf
34
National legislation transposing Directive 95/46/EC -
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/95-46-ce/dir1995-46_part1_en.pdf
35
RFID Technology - Results of the Public Consultation on Article 29 Working Document 105 on Data
Protection Issues Related to RFID Technology Adopted on 28 September 2005
http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fsj/privacy/workinggroup/consultations/rfid_en.htm
36
Opinion 13 of EGE - Ethical Issues of Healthcare in The Information Society.-
http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/docs/avis13_en.pdf
37
Council Directive on Protection of Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/aw/aw_legislation/scientific/86-609-eec_en.pdf
38
Opinion 20 of EGE – Ethical Aspects of ICT Implants in the Human Body -
http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/docs/avis20_en.pdf
39
Such research is partly covered by Council Directive 90/385/EEC relating to active implantable medical devices-
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1990/en_1990L0385_do_001.pdf

th
57 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

prospects such as enhancing the immune system. Their use should be based on need, rather than
economic resources or social position.
• ICT implants or wearable computing devices must not: allow individuals to be located on a permanent
and/or occasional basis, without the individual’s prior knowledge and consent; allow information to be
changed remotely without the individual’s prior knowledge and consent; be used to support any kind of
discrimination; be used to manipulate mental functions or change personal identity, memory, self-
perception, perception of others; be used to enhance capabilities in order to dominate others, or enable
remote control over the will of other people.
• ICT implants should not be developed to influence future generations, either biologically or culturally.
• ICT implants should be developed to be removed easily.

3.2 eHealth40 and genetics

Personal health data must be treated as ‘sensitive personal data’41. ICT researchers using it have a duty of
confidentiality equivalent to the professional duty of medical secrecy. Therefore:

• The use of personal health data in ICT research for the purposes from which society as a whole benefits
must be justified in the context of the personal rights.
• The security of ICT in healthcare is an ethical imperative to ensure the respect for human rights and
freedoms of the individual, in particular the confidentiality of data and the reliability of ICT systems used in
medical care.
• Proposers should be particularly aware when ICT is linked to sensitive medical areas such as the use of
genetic material1.
• Proposers should access established general medical and genetics ethical guidance when formulating
their proposals.

3.3 ICT and Bio/Nano-electronics

ICT-bio/nano-electronics has a strong potential for mis-use. Consequently, proposers should pay particular
attention to the guidelines in Section 2 in this area42.

• Researchers involved in ICT-bio/nano-electronics research proposals should be aware that certain

applications, e.g. miniaturised sensors, may have specific implications for the protection of privacy and
personal data4.
• ICT-bio/nano-electronics research may overlap with other scientific disciplines such as biology. In these
situations proposers should draw upon the ethical guidance of that discipline.

40
Opinion 13 of EGE - Ethical Issues of Healthcare in The Information Society.-
http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/docs/avis13_en.pdf
41
Directive 95/46/EC -
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/95-46-ce/dir1995-46_part1_en.pdf
42
COM (2004) 338 final - http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/rech_simple.cfm?CL=en

th
58 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Annex 6: Pre-proposal check form

Pre-proposal check form: ICT Call 8; PPP Calls
This form may be submitted at any time up to four weeks before the close of call, to the email
address given in Annex 1 of this Guide. Only one pre-proposal check is offered per proposal.

First Name __________________ Surname ____________________________________ Gender M/F

Organisation name ______________________________________________________________________________
Country _______________________________

E-mail ______________________________ Telephone number _________________________

Proposal acronym

Proposal full name

Call ICT Call 8 FoF EeB GC
Objective (as named in the call
fiche)
Funding scheme(please indicate IP STREP NoE CA ERANET + SA CP-CSA
one only)
Approximate total cost (optional €
information)

If this proposal is a revised version of earlier ICT proposal, please give the following details of the earlier version -

Prop. Acronym: Prop. No. ICT call no:

List of participants (proposal coordinator first)

Name of organisation Country

th
59 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Proposal summary
PLEASE DO NOT EXCEED 1 PAGE

The Commission services will reply by electronic mail giving a brief assessment of this pre-proposal. The assessment
does not constitute in any respect a pre-evaluation of the proposal in terms of scientific and technical quality. The
advice given by the Commission is strictly informal and non-binding. The advice provided does not in any way engage
the Commission with regard to acceptance or rejection of the proposal when it is finally submitted.

th
60 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

Annex 7 ERANET Plus actions

(Text extracted from Annex 4 of the General Annexes to the Cooperation Workprogramme)

A4.2.2.2 Activity: ERA-NET PLUS actions

Funding Scheme: Coordination and Support Actions (Coordinating Action)
Under ERA-NET Plus actions, the Commission provides an incentive to the organisation of joint
calls between national or regional research programmes by 'topping-up' joint trans-national funding
with EU funding. These joint calls will entail the award of grants to third parties participating in
calls for proposals launched under the ERA-NET Plus actions.
These actions require programme owners or programme managers from at least 5 different
Member States or Associated Countries to plan a single joint call with a clear financial
commitment from the participating national or regional research programmes.
Activities funded
The EU will top up the total of the national contributions to the joint call with additional funding for
RTD activities. The EU contribution will be limited to a maximum of 33% of the total contributions
to the joint call budget. The combined national/regional and EU contributions to the joint calls have
to reach at least EUR 5 million.

The EU contribution shall take the form of a grant. This grant will combine the reimbursement of
eligible costs covering the activities linked to the preparation and coordination of the joint call8, and
the reimbursement of eligible costs as an agreed proportional contribution to the national pooling of
funds (for activities relating to the funding of selected trans-national projects, maximum 33%).
In accordance with the Decisions concerning the Seventh Framework Programme9 and the
'Cooperation' Specific Programme10, the provisions of Article 120(2) of the Council Regulation on
the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities11 and
Article 184a of the Commission Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of
Council Regulation on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European
Communities,12 shall not be applicable with regard to the financial support provided by the
participants in the ERA-NET Plus actions to third parties participating in projects selected
following calls for proposals launched under these actions.

The total duration of a given ERA-NET Plus action and of the resulting projects should normally
not exceed 5 years.

Specific Eligibility criteria for ERA-NET Plus actions

ERA-NET Plus proposals must meet the following eligibility criteria:

8
No further supporting costs will be eligible once a 'selection decision' has been taken by the consortium as a
result of the joint call.
9
OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p. 1 Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18
December 2006
10
OJ L 400, 30.12.2006, p. 86
11
Council Regulation No. 1605/2002 of 25.6.2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget
of the European Communities (OJ L248, 16.09.2002, p1).
12
Commission Regulation No, 2342/2002 of 23.12.2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of
Council Regulation No. 1605/2002 (OJ L357, 31.12.2002, p1).

th
61 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

• A single joint call should be planned with a clear financial commitment from the
participating national or regional programmes13.
• Eligible participants are the same as for ERA-NET actions with the exception that
programme owners, which do not have yet a running or fully fledged research programme at
the moment of submitting a proposal, are not eligible for ERA-NET Plus actions.
Furthermore, a consortium must include programme owners or programme managers
from at least 5 different Member States or Associated Countries.
• Beyond the minimum of 5 programme owners or managers, the same types of additional
participants foreseen for ERA-NET actions are eligible.
• The total planned budget of the joint call shall have a minimum financial volume of EUR 5
million.
• A common peer review mechanism for evaluating the proposals submitted to the joint call
shall be foreseen.
• Each project financed out of the joint call shall be trans-national (i.e. minimum of two
partners from different Member States or Associated Countries).
• A fixed common set of general evaluation/selection criteria (excellence, European added
value, etc.) should be part of the common evaluation criteria of the joint call organised by
the national programmes.
Detailed rules for participation in the funded trans-national projects shall be defined by the call
organisers themselves (e.g. participating national or regional programmes).

Expected Impact
ERA-NET Plus actions aim to facilitate the launching of joint calls for proposals between EU
Member States or Associated Countries, based on their European added value. In special cases, they
may also facilitate the transition of an ERA-NET towards an Article 169 initiative, where the criteria
for the latter are met.
The EU added value will be a critical criterion to evaluate the impact of ERA-NET Plus actions and
will depend on the area/topic covered by the research programmes participating in the joint call.
Therefore, the following criteria should help to identify the impact of ERA-NET Plus actions
offering best prospects for sufficient European added value:
• Relevance to EU objectives: The field of the potential topic should be of major interest for the
EU as a whole.
• Framework Programme relevance. As regards 'objective': Demonstration that an ERA-NET
Plus action in that topic shall allow the EU to reach the objective of effectively enhancing the
coordination of national research programmes. As regards 'content': The field of the potential
topic shall be covered by the Framework Programme both in terms of scientific content and of
budget allocation.
• Pre-existing basis: The ERA-NET Plus action should build on a pre-existing basis or
coordination experience between national programmes in the topic identified.
• Critical mass: ERA-NET Plus actions will enable national programmes to address together with
the EU programmes research areas, that due to the nature of the field are better addressed jointly
or fields which would/could not have been addressed independently.

13
Proposals must demonstrate that national research programmes are committed to support the call. Selected proposals
will have to provide evidence that a commitment has been made by the relevant research programmes.

th
62 20 July 2011 v1
Information and Communications Technologies FP7-ICT-2011-8; FP7-2012-ICT-GC
Guide for Applicants Coordination actions (CAs) or ERANET Plus actions

• Instrument relevance: Demonstration that ERA-NET Plus is the most appropriate instrument for
achieving the Framework Programme goals with regard to coordination of national research
programmes (i.e.: avoiding fragmentation, etc.). Demonstration that implementing an ERA-NET
Plus action in a given field is more appropriate to coordination goals, than other possible FP7
actions.

ERA-NET Plus actions are expected, where appropriate, to facilitate the development of a more
global approach to the topics addressed, involving also non European research programme.
ERA-NET Plus actions are expected to have a lasting impact. The cooperation developed should
provide reliable indications that it could continue beyond the joint call supported by the EU
funding.

th
63 20 July 2011 v1