REPORT on the amended proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results for the implementation of the European Community framework programme 2002-2006
(COM(2001) 822 – C5-0017/2002 – 2001/0202(COD))

29 May 2002 - ***I

Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy
Rapporteur: Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl

PROCEDURAL PAGE

By letter of 10 September 2001 the Commission submitted to Parliament, pursuant to Articles 161 and 172(2) of the EC Treaty, the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results for the implementation of the European Community framework programme 2002-2006 (COM(2001) 500 – 2001/0202 (COD)).

At the sitting of 19 September 2001 the President of Parliament announced that she had referred this proposal to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy as the committee responsible and to all interested committees for their opinions (C5‑0412/2001).

By letter of 10 January 2002 the Commission submitted to Parliament, pursuant to Articles 251(2), 167 and 172(2) of the EC Treaty, the amended proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results for the implementation of the European Community framework programme 2002-2006 (COM(2001) 822 – 2001/0202 (COD)).

At the sitting of 16 January 2002 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred this proposal to the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy as the committee responsible and to all interested committees for their opinions (C5‑0017/2002).

The Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy had appointed Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl rapporteur at its meeting of 10 October 2001.

It considered the Commission proposal and draft report at its meetings of 24 January, 26 February, 17 and 22 April, and 21 and 28 May 2002.

At the last meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution by 44 votes to 1, with 1 abstention.

The following were present for the vote: Carlos Westendorp y Cabeza, chairman; Peter Michael Mombaur, Yves Piétrasanta and Jaime Valdivielso de Cué, vice-chairmen; Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, rapporteur; Nuala Ahern, Konstantinos Alyssandrakis, Sir Robert Atkins, Luis Berenguer Fuster, Guido Bodrato, David Robert Bowe (for Gary Titley), Gérard Caudron, Giles Bryan Chichester, Nicholas Clegg, Dorette Corbey (for Harlem Désir), Willy C.E.H. De Clercq, Concepció Ferrer, Glyn Ford (for Reino Paasilinna), Pat the Cope Gallagher, Norbert Glante, Michel Hansenne, Hans Karlsson, Bashir Khanbhai, Werner Langen, Peter Liese (for Marjo Matikainen-Kallström), Caroline Lucas, Minerva Melpomeni Malliori (for Massimo Carraro), Hans-Peter Martin (for Rolf Linkohr), Eryl Margaret McNally, William Francis Newton Dunn (for Colette Flesch), Angelika Niebler, Paolo Pastorelli, Elly Plooij-van Gorsel, John Purvis, Alexander Radwan (for Dominique Vlasto), Bernhard Rapkay (for Erika Mann), Imelda Mary Read, Mechtild Rothe, Christian Foldberg Rovsing, Paul Rübig, Konrad K. Schwaiger, Claude Turmes, W.G. van Velzen, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca, Myrsini Zorba and Olga Zrihen Zaari.

The opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport is attached.

The report was tabled on 29 May 2002.

The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant part-session.

DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

European Parliament legislative resolution on the amended proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results for the implementation of the European Community framework programme 2002-2006 (COM(2001) 822 – C5-0017/2002 – 2001/0202(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal[1] and amended proposal[2] to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2001) 500 and COM(2001) 822),

–   having regard to Articles 161 and 172(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C5-0017/2002),

–   having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (A5-0203/2002),

1.   Approves the amended Commission proposal as amended;

2.   Asks to be consulted again should the Commission intend to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

• [1] OJ C 332E, 27.11.2001, pp. 275-286.
• [2] OJ C 103E, 30.4.2002, pp. 266-291

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL

Amended proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results for the implementation of the European Community framework programme 2002-2006 (COM(2001) 822 – C5‑0017/2002 – 2001/0202(COD))

The proposal is amended as follows:

Text proposed by the Commission1[1]1 OJ C 103E, 30.4.2002, pp. 266-291.	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Title
DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL	REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
	(This amendment applies throughout the legislative text. If adopted it will require technical adjustments throughout the text.)
Justification The rules on participation apply to all potential participants in Community research promotion measures and so have general application. Hence under Article 249 of the EC Treaty they should be adopted as a regulation.
Amendment 2 Title
Concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results for the implementation of the European Community framework programme 2002-2006	concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres, associations and universities and for the dissemination of research results for the implementation of the sixth European Community framework programme 2002-2006
	(This amendment applies throughout the legislative text. If adopted it will require technical adjustments throughout the text.)
Justification The programme concerned is the sixth, as the Council has confirmed in its Common Position, so it is a matter of consistency to say so in all legislation affecting the sixth research framework programme.
Amendment 3 Recital 7
(7)   Activities under the framework programme should comply with the financial interests of the Community and should safeguard those interests.	(7)   Activities under the framework programme should comply with the financial interests of the Community and should safeguard those interests. The Commission’s responsibility for implementation of the framework programme and its specific programmes also includes the financial aspects arising from them.
Justification The Commission’s proposed wording in Article 13 does give participants such as universities, small businesses and other institutions greater responsibility. But the Commission’s responsibility for implementing the framework programme and the financial aspects arising from it remains unaffected. This needs spelling out in the regulation.
Amendment 4 Recital 7 a (new)
	(7a)   The rules should be simple and efficient, so that the administrative and financial burden for the participants and the Commission is kept as small as possible, particularly in the case of project preparation and development and the conclusion of contractual negotiations.
Justification Self-explanatory.
Amendment 5 Recital 7 b (new)
	(7b)   Participants should receive the Community financial contribution without delay, on producing proof of refundable costs incurred by the indirect action, which should not exclude other appropriate procedures.
Justification Self-explanatory.
Amendment 6 Recital 8
(8)   The rules governing the dissemination of research results should promote the protection of the intellectual property and the use and dissemination of those results. They should ensure that participants have mutual access to pre-existing know-how and to knowledge arising from research work to the extent necessary to conduct the research work or to use the resulting knowledge. At the same time, they should guarantee the protection of the participants’ intellectual assets. They should also take account of the features of the integrated projects and networks of excellence, in particular by offering a high degree of flexibility to the participants, and allowing them to agree among themselves on the most suitable arrangements for their collaboration and for the exploitation of the resulting knowledge.	(8)   The rules governing the dissemination of research results should promote the protection of the intellectual property and the use and dissemination of those results. They should ensure that participants have mutual access to pre-existing know-how and to knowledge arising from research work to the extent necessary to conduct the research work or to use the resulting knowledge. At the same time, they should guarantee the protection of the participants’ intellectual assets. They should also take account of the features of the integrated projects and networks of excellence, in particular by offering a high degree of flexibility to the participants, and allowing them to agree among themselves on the most suitable arrangements for their collaboration and for the exploitation of the resulting knowledge. These agreements may form part of a consortium contract under Article 12.
Justification It makes sense if consortia, particularly excellence networks and integrated projects, conclude agreements to settle legal relations between partners. It is in participants’ own interest to regulate their internal relationship from the start, thus avoiding unpleasant surprises, for instance in questions of intellectual property. But requiring participants to conclude a consortium contract would be to impose on them unnecessarily.
Amendment 7 Recital 8 a (new)
	(8a)   Opportunities for small businesses to participate successfully in the sixth framework programme will be clearly improved by allowing small business consortia to participate.
Justification Self-explanatory.
Amendment 8 Article 2, point (e)
(e)   contract means a grant agreement concerning the performance of an indirect action establishing rights and obligations between the Community and the participants in that indirect action;	(e)   contract means a grant agreement between the European Commission and the participants concerning the performance of an indirect action establishing rights and obligations between the Community and the participants in that indirect action;
Justification It needs to be clear that the contract is concluded with the participants. The contract governs the relationship between the participants and the Commission.
Amendment 9 Article 2, point (e a) (new)
	(ea)   consortium contract means agreements that participants in an indirect action conclude between themselves for its implementation. Such agreements shall not affect participants’ obligations to the Commission and one another arising out of the Regulation and the contract;
Justification Introducing the principle of the consortium contract raises the need to define it. The main thing is to make it clear that the consortium contract must comply with the participation rules and the contract between the Commission and participants.
Amendment 10 Article 2, point (h a) (new)
	(ha)   coordinator means the participant appointed by participants in the same indirect action and accepted by the Commission who will act as their main spokesperson with the Commission;
Justification The Commission draft refers to coordinators, although without using that term, in Article 13(2). They are the participants to whom the financial contribution is paid.
Amendment 11 Article 2, point (j)
(j)   international European interest organisation means an international organisation, the majority of whose members are European Community Member States or Associated States, and whose principal objective is to promote scientific and technological cooperation in Europe;	(j)    international European interest organisation means an international organisation, the majority of whose members are European Community Member States or Associated States or legal entities constituting scientific cooperation organisations between research centres in the aforementioned States and whose principal objective is to promote scientific and technological cooperation in Europe;
Justification The aim of this amendment is to enlarge the definition of international European interest organisations to other entities than those exclusively constituted by Member States. It is linked to the amendment to Article 4, paragraph 4 by the same author.
Amendment 12 Article 2, point (r)
(r)   irregularity means any infringement of a provision of Community law or any breach of a contractual obligation resulting from an act or omission by a legal entity which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Communities or budgets managed by them through unjustified expenditure;	(r)   irregularity means any infringement of a provision of Community law or any breach of a contractual obligation resulting from an act or omission for which a legal entity is answerable which has had, or is having, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Communities or budgets managed by them through unjustified expenditure;
Justification The wording has been brought into line with Regulation No 2988/95 on protecting the financial interests of the European Communities.
Amendment 13 Article 2, point (v)
(v)   use means the direct or indirect utilisation of knowledge in research activities or for creating and marketing a product or process or for creating and providing a service.	(v)   use means the direct or indirect utilisation of knowledge in research activities or for developing, creating and marketing a product or process or for creating and providing a service.
Justification Development too can form part of the use of knowledge, particularly in basic research.
Amendment 14 Article 2, point (v a) (new)
	(va)   work programme means the programme set up by the Commission to implement specific programme decisions;
Justification ‘Work programme’ comes up several times later in the text, but is not defined. As the concept is used both in this proposal and in that for a decision on the specific programmes in two different contexts, it should be defined.
Amendment 15 Article 2, point (v b) (new)
	(vb)   joint activity programme covers all actions by participants in the same indirect action in the field of the excellence networks instrument;
Justification The joint activity programme for the new excellence networks instrument needs defining clearly.
Amendment 16 Article 2, point (v c) (new)
	(vc)   access rights means licences and usage rights for knowledge or existing know-how;
Justification Access rights need defining.
Amendment 17 Article 2, point (v d) (new)
	(vd)   legitimate interests means any interest, particularly business interest, of a participant that may be asserted in the cases laid down in the Regulation. In so doing participants must show that in view of the specific situation they would incur disproportionate loss if their interest were not taken into account.
Justification ‘Legitimate interests’ needs defining.
Amendment 18 Article 2, points (v e) and (v f) (new)
	(ve)   subcontract means an agreement to provide services, supplies or goods between a participant and one or more subcontractors for the specific needs of the project under the conditions provided for in the contract;
	(vf)   subcontractor means a legal entity or international organisation, and the JRC which is party to a subcontract;
Justification The absence of definition of subcontract and subcontractors implies that providers of small-scale services, supplies or goods will require full status as ‘participants’ with the incumbent questions of access to knowledge and pre-existing know-how. Participants in integrated projects and networks of excellence will require the ability to issue small subcontracts without involving the suppliers in the consortium.
Amendment 19 Article 4, paragraph 4
4.   Any international European interest organisation may take part in indirect actions on the same footing and shall be entitled to the same rights and bound by the same obligations as a legal entity established in a Member State in accordance with its Statute of Establishment.	4.   Any international European interest organisation, including scientific cooperation organisations such as CERN, ESA, ESO, ENO and EMBL, may take part in indirect actions on the same footing and shall be entitled to the same rights and bound by the same obligations as a legal entity established in a Member State in accordance with its Statute of Establishment.
Justification The aim of the amendment is to make specific mention of the scientific cooperation organisations and thus include the European Northern Observatory (ENO) on the Canary Islands.
Amendment 20 Article 4, paragraph 5
5.   Depending on the type of instrument deployed or the objectives of the RTD activity, the work programmes for the specific programmes may, if necessary, restrict participation in an indirect action to legal entities according to their activities or type.	5.   In the work programmes for the specific programmes the participation of legal entities in an indirect action may be specified and restricted according to their RTD activity and type as defined in Annexes I and III to the sixth framework programme,2002-2006, to take account of specific objectives. Community financial participation pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty shall not be covered in the work programmes.
Justification It is in the nature of certain indirect actions, such as SME projects, to apply only to certain target groups. Any restrictions to the participation need to be defined at a higher level than the work programmes. This gives the Commission excessive scope to define the composition of consortia on a programme-by-programme basis.
Amendment 21 Article 5, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1 a (new)
	1a.   Notwithstanding the instruments defined in paragraph 2, the minimum number of participants may not be fewer than three independent legal entities established in three different Member States or Associated States, of which at least one legal entity must have its registered office in a Member State or associated applicant State.
Justification Clarity is served if the conditions in the various instruments do not differ too much. A minimum of three independent participants from two Member States of associated applicant states in the majority of research projects safeguards their cross-border character and ensures a critical mass of human resources. But the Commission is only proposing two participants.
Amendment 22 Article 5, paragraph 2
2.   For networks of excellence and integrated projects, the minimum number of participants shall not be less than three independent legal entities established in three different Member States or Associated States, of which at least two shall be Member States or Associated candidate countries.	deleted
Justification Deletion is the consequence of the amendment to Article 5(1).
Amendment 23 Article 5, paragraph 3
3.   Specific support actions and actions in favour of human resources and mobility, except for research training networks, may be executed by a single legal entity.	3.   Specific support actions and actions in favour of human resources and mobility, except for research training networks, may be executed by a single legal entity.
When the work programme establishes a minimum number that is greater than or equal to two legal entities established in as many Member States or Associated States, this number shall be fixed according to the conditions provided for in paragraph 4.
Justification Results from the amendment to Article 5(1).
Amendment 24 Article 5, paragraph 4
4.   For instruments other than those covered in paragraphs 2 and 3, the minimum number of participants shall not be less than two independent legal entities established in two different Member States or Associated States, of which at least one shall be a Member State or an Associated candidate country.	deleted
Justification Results from the amendment to Article 5(1).
Amendment 25 Article 5, paragraph 5
5.   An EEIG or any legal entity established in a Member State or Associated State which is made up of independent legal entities meeting the criteria of this Decision may be the sole participant in an indirect action, provided that its composition is in accordance with the conditions fixed pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 4.	5.   An EEIG or any legal entity established in accordance with the national legislation in a Member State or Associated State which is made up of independent legal entities meeting the criteria of this Regulation may be the sole participant in an indirect action, provided that its composition is in accordance with the conditions fixed pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2.
Justification The EEIG is an important new legal instrument to be used in conjunction with the framework programme.
Amendment 26 Article 6, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1
1.   Any legal entity established in a third country may participate, over and above the minimum number of participants fixed in accordance with the terms of Article 5, in RTD activities under the objective ‘Integrating research’ of Decision 200./.../EC [laying down the specific programme ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’].	1.   Any legal entity established in a third country may participate, over and above the minimum number of participants fixed in accordance with the terms of Article 5, in RTD activities provided that this concords with the interests of the Community. Details shall be laid down in the work programme.
	1a.   This shall apply to participation by participants from industrial third countries, if it is possible for Community legal entities to participate in programmes in the third country concerned on a reciprocal basis as a matter of principle.
Justification The addition is necessary to ensure that the principle of reciprocity is fulfilled in the case of industrial third countries.
Amendment 27 Article 8, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1
2.   At the time when they present their proposal, participants shall have at least the potential resources needed to carry out the indirect action, and shall specify the relevant source.	2.   At the time when they present their proposal, participants shall demonstrate that they have at least the potential resources – broken down into their own resources and the extent and nature of any third party resources – needed to carry out the indirect action, and be able to specify the relevant source.
Justification This amendment is aimed at clarifying the text proposed by the Commission, by introducing the obligation for the participants to demonstrate that they have the potential resources at the time they present their proposal. To verify the participants’ resources from the subsidy point of view requires a breakdown distinguishing their own from third party resources.
Amendment 28 Article 9
1.   Proposals for indirect actions shall be submitted under the terms of calls for proposals published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and, as far as possible, widely advertised by other means.	1.   Proposals for indirect actions shall be submitted under the terms of calls for proposals. These calls for proposals shall be laid down in the work programmes.
	1a.   A call for proposals may follow a two-stage procedure for project evaluation. If in such cases the first-stage evaluation of a proposal summary is positive, participants must submit a complete proposal in the second stage.
	1b.   In the case of support actions, however, the selection criteria and the final evaluations shall be laid down and advertised in the media.
2.   Paragraph 1 shall not apply to:	2.   Paragraph 1 shall not apply to:
(a)   specific support actions for the activities of legal entities identified in the work programmes;	(a)   specific support actions for the activities of legal entities identified in the work programmes;
(b)   specific support actions consisting of a purchase or service governed by the terms applicable to public procurement procedures;	(b)   specific support actions consisting of a purchase or service governed by the terms applicable to public procurement procedures;
(c)   specific support actions with particular characteristics and value to the objectives and the scientific and technological content of specific programmes, for which grant applications may be submitted to the Commission if so provided for in the work programme of the relevant specific programme and where such a request does not fall within the scope of an open call for proposals.	(c)   specific support actions with particular characteristics and value to the objectives and the scientific and technological content of specific programmes, for which grant applications may be submitted to the Commission if so provided for in the work programme of the relevant specific programme and where such a request does not fall within the scope of an open call for proposals.
(d)   specific support actions covered by Article 11.	(d)   specific support actions covered by Article 11.
3.   Calls for expressions of interest may be issued prior to calls for proposals, in order to enable the Commission to identify and evaluate precise objectives and requirements, without prejudice to any decisions it may subsequently take.	3.   Calls for expressions of interest may be issued prior to calls for proposals, in order to enable the Commission to identify and evaluate precise objectives and requirements. This shall not affect any decisions the Commission may subsequently take.
	3a.   Calls for expressions of interest and for proposals shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and disseminated by other means as widely as possible, in particular via the Internet pages of the sixth framework programme and specific information channels and supporting national contact points set up by the Member States and Associated States.
Justification With a success rate of 15 % it is disproportionate to expect large financial and human resources to be deployed on an application. Many potential participants are deterred by the disproportionate cost-benefit ratio. A two-stage procedure may be a sensible step, particularly in the case of very complex tenders,, by not demanding a large effort until the benefit is likelier. Any Commission invitation to tender should be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and disseminated via the national contact points so that potential participants have the information. The addition improves transparency and access to the framework programme by interested parties. The discretionary power accorded where specific support actions are concerned seems dubiously wide. On the other hand, the necessary provision does not appear to have been made for the evaluation and monitoring required to enable the measures in question to be managed transparently and efficiently.
Amendment 29 Article 10
1.   The proposals for indirect actions covered in Article 9(1) and Article 9(2)(c) shall be evaluated according to the following criteria:	1.   The proposals for indirect actions covered in Article 9(1) and Article 9(2)(c) shall be evaluated according to the following criteria:
(a)   relevance to the objectives of the specific programme;	(a)    scientific and technological excellence and the degree of innovation;
(b)   scientific and technological excellence;	(b)    ability to carry out the indirect action successfully and with efficient management, assessed in terms of resources , competencies and organisation;
(c)   added value to the Community, including the critical mass of resources mobilised, the expected impact or contribution to Community policies;	(c)   relevance to the objectives of the specific programme;
(d)   quality of the plan for the use or dissemination of the knowledge, potential for promoting innovation, and ability to manage intellectual property;	(d)    European added value, critical mass of resources mobilised and contribution to Community policies;
(e)   ability to successfully carry out the indirect action, assessed in terms of resources, competencies and organisation.	(e)    quality of the plan for the use or dissemination of the knowledge, and ability to manage intellectual property.
2.   In applying paragraph 1(c), the following criteria shall also be taken into account:	2.   In applying paragraph 1(c), the following criteria shall also be taken into account:
(a)   for networks of excellence, the scope and degree of the effort to achieve integration and the network's capacity to promote excellence beyond its membership, as well as the prospects of the long-term integration of their research capabilities and resources after the end of the period covered by the Community’s financial contribution;	(a)   for networks of excellence, the scope and degree of the effort to achieve integration and the network's capacity to promote excellence beyond its membership, as well as the prospects of the long-term integration of their research capabilities and resources after the end of the period covered by the Community’s financial contribution;
(b)   for integrated projects, the scale of ambition of the objectives and the capacity of the resources to make a significant contribution to reinforcing competitiveness or solving societal problems;	(b)   for integrated projects, the scale of ambition of the objectives and the capacity of the resources to make a significant contribution to reinforcing competitiveness or solving societal problems;
(c)   for integrated initiatives relating to infrastructure, the prospects of the initiative's continuing long term after the end of the period covered by the Community’s financial contribution.	(c)   for integrated initiatives relating to infrastructure, the prospects of the initiative's continuing long term after the end of the period covered by the Community’s financial contribution.
	2a.   In applying paragraphs 1 and 2, additionally the following criteria can be taken into account:
	(a)   synergies with education at all levels;
	(a)   readiness and capacity to engage with actors beyond the research community and the public as a whole, to help spread awareness and knowledge and to explore the wider societal implications of the proposed work;
	(b)   activities to increase the role of women in research.
	(c)   in programmes concerning an outermost region, greater weight shall be accorded to the criterion of Community added value.
	2b.   The selection of proposals for indirect actions shall follow a two-stage procedure according to Article 9, paragraph 1a (new).
	In the first stage a project outline is submitted and evaluated in accordance with paragraph 1(a) to (c).
	The applicant is informed, with brief reasons, whether his project is likely or unlikely to be accepted. In the case of an application with slight procedural shortcomings the Commission is required to inform the applicant thereof and enable him to correct them.
	In the second round all evaluation criteria shall be used.
	Applicants may opt to include other partners before the second stage. The nature of the proposal may not be changed as a result.
	The selection procedure should be so designed that in its two stages it lasts no longer than the present single-stage procedure.
3.   The work programmes of the specific programmes shall determine, in accordance with the type of instruments deployed or the objectives of the RTD activity, which of the criteria set out in paragraph 1 shall be applied by the Commission. These criteria, and those of paragraph 2, shall be clarified or complemented, particularly to take account of the contribution of the proposals for indirect actions to improve information for and dialogue with society as well as to increase the role of women in research.	3.   The work programmes shall determine, in accordance with the type of instruments deployed or the objectives of the RTD activity, which of the criteria set out in paragraph 1 shall be applied by the Commission. These criteria, and those of paragraph 2, shall be clarified or complemented, particularly to take account of the contribution of the proposals for indirect actions to improve information for and dialogue with society, promote the competitiveness of small businesses and increase the role of women in research.
4.   Any proposal for an indirect action which contravenes fundamental ethical principles, particularly those set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, or which does not fulfil the conditions set out in the work programme or in the call for proposals may be excluded from the evaluation and selection procedure at any time.	4.   Any proposal for an indirect action which contravenes fundamental ethical principles, particularly those set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, or which does not fulfil the conditions set out in the work programme or in the call for proposals may be excluded from the evaluation and selection procedure at any time.
Any participant having committed an irregularity in the implementation of an indirect action may be excluded from the evaluation and selection procedure at any time.	Any participant having committed an irregularity in the implementation of an indirect action may be excluded from the evaluation and selection procedure at any time.
5.   The Commission shall evaluate and select the proposals for indirect actions in accordance with transparent, fair and impartial procedures laid down in an evaluation manual, which it will make public.	5.   The Commission shall select the proposals for financial support following negotiations on the basis of the evaluation results and having regard to the budgetary funds available.
	The Commission shall give reasons for any decision rejecting a proposal.
6.   The Commission shall evaluate the proposals with the help of independent experts appointed in accordance with the provisions of Article 11. For some specific support actions, particularly those covered by Article 9(2), independent experts shall be appointed only if the Commission deems it appropriate.	6.   The Commission shall evaluate the proposals with the help of independent experts appointed in accordance with the provisions of Article 11. For some specific support actions, particularly those covered by Article 9(2), independent experts shall be appointed only if the Commission deems it appropriate.
	All proposals submitted for indirect actions shall be considered by the Commission in confidence, and evaluated and selected in accordance with transparent and impartial internal procedures laid down in advance under Article 218 of the EC Treaty. Details shall be laid down in the work programme. Proposals shall not be evaluated anonymously.
	The evaluation and selection procedures shall be summarised in an evaluation manual and published by the Commission.
Justification Points (a), (b), (d) and (e) in the Commission text become points (c), (a), (e), (e) and (b) respectively in the amendment. The scientific and technological quality of an application and the degree of innovation should be the first criterion for selection. This reflects the strategic objectives of the Lisbon summit, of making Europe the world’s most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy. The additional criteria under 2(a) highlight additional activities to judge proposals, in line with action 10 of the Commission’s Action Plan on Science and Society. The preamble to the sixth framework programme, which, moreover, follows the example of the fifth programme, mentions the need to take account of the specific features of the outermost regions where access to the programme is concerned. The amendment proposed aims to give a measure of effect to the recital in question so as to prevent the outermost regions being penalised, bearing in mind in particular that it might be difficult to find outside partners willing to enter into collaboration with institutes based in outermost regions, whatever the quality of the projects that might give rise to an application. With a success rate of 15 % it is disproportionate to expect large financial and human resources to be deployed on an application. Many potential participants are deterred by the disproportionate cost-benefit ratio. The two-stage procedure deals with this problem. To make it possible to expand the criteria to include those that, for instance, are designed to promote the competitiveness of small businesses and strengthen the role of women in research
Amendment 30 Article 11, paragraph 2, point (a)
(a)   The independent experts appointed by the Commission for the evaluations provided for in Article 6 of the 2002-2006 framework programme, Article 9(2) of Decision [.....], and Article 8(2) of the specific programme ‘Structuring the European Research Area’ shall be very high-ranking individuals from the fields of science, industry or politics with significant experience in research, research policy or research programme management at national or international level.	(a)   The independent experts appointed by the Commission for the evaluations provided for in Article 6 of the 2002-2006 framework programme, Article 9(2) of Decision 200./.../EC [on the specific programme for integration and consolidation of the European research area], and Article 8(2) of Decision 200./.../EC on the specific programme ‘Structuring the European Research Area’ shall be very high-ranking individuals from the fields of science, industry or politics with significant experience in research, research policy or research programme management at national or international level.
Justification The specific programmes to which the provision applies need identifying clearly.
Amendment 31 Article 11, paragraph 2, point (b)
(b)   The independent experts appointed by the Commission to assist in the evaluation of proposals for networks of excellence and integrated projects and in monitoring the projects selected and carried out shall be individuals from the fields of science or industry with the highest level of knowledge and who are internationally recognised authorities in the relevant specialist area.	(b)   The independent experts appointed by the Commission to assist in the evaluation of proposals for networks of excellence and integrated projects and in monitoring the projects selected and carried out shall be individuals from the fields of science (including social sciences) and industry with the highest level of knowledge and who are internationally recognised in the relevant specialist area.
Justification This would remove unnecessary limits to the pool of expertise available to the Commission. It would allow, for example, recourse to experts with ethical or legal backgrounds, or individuals working in civil society organisations or other users concerned with the practical implementation of possible project results.
Amendment 32 Article 11, paragraph 2, point (d a) (new)
	(da)   Experts shall be selected and appointed in accordance with criteria of transparency and professionalism, as attested by qualifications and experience. The Commission shall publish a list of the experts consulted, specifying their qualifications (professional experience and formal qualifications).
Justification At present the Commission can select experts largely at its own discretion. It should publish a list of the experts whom it consults, specifying their professional experience and the formal qualifications which they hold, so that they can be seen to be competent in the subjects that they will be called upon to evaluate.
Amendment 33 Article 11, paragraph 3
3.   When appointing an independent expert, the Commission shall ensure that the expert will not be faced with a conflict of interests in relation to the matter on which he is required to give an opinion. To this end, the Commission shall require experts to sign a declaration to the effect that there is no such conflict of interest at the time of their appointment and promising to inform the Commission if one should arise in the course of their duties.	3.   When appointing an independent expert, the Commission shall ensure that the expert will not be faced with a conflict of interests in relation to the matter on which he is required to give an opinion. To this end, the Commission shall require experts to sign a declaration to the effect that there is no such conflict of interest at the time of their appointment and promising to inform the Commission if one should arise in the course of their duties. They must also undertake to preserve confidentiality. The Commission shall wherever it is able ensure that the principles of confidentiality are upheld in all procedures.
Justification The principle of confidentiality is essential in the use of experts. This is part of the Commission’s responsibility.
Amendment 34 Article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2
1.   Contracts for the indirect action proposals selected shall be drawn up on the basis of the appropriate model contract established by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of the 2002-2006 framework programme and this Decision, account being taken, as far as is required, of the characteristics of the various instruments concerned.	1.   For each indirect action proposal selected the Commission shall draw up a contract. This shall accord with the provisions of the 2002-2006 framework programme, this Regulation and the model contract established, as far as is required, to take account of the characteristics of the various instruments concerned.
	To draw up the model contract the Commission shall consult with interested parties from the Member States and the Associated States.
2.   The contract shall establish the rights and obligations of participants in accordance with this Decision, and in particular the arrangements for the technical, technological and financial monitoring of the indirect action, for the updating of its objectives, for changes in consortium membership, for the payment of the Community financial contribution and, if applicable, conditions for the eligibility of any necessary expenditure, as well as rules for dissemination and use.	2.   The contract shall establish the rights and obligations of participants in accordance with this Decision, and in particular the arrangements for the technical, technological and financial monitoring of the indirect action, for the updating of its objectives, for changes in consortium membership, for the payment of the Community financial contribution and, if applicable, conditions for the eligibility of any necessary expenditure, as well as rules for dissemination and use. The contract shall enter into force on signature by the Commission and the coordinator.
	The other participants named in the contract shall accede to it in due course in accordance with the arrangements provided. They shall then have a participant’s rights and obligations in relation to the Community, as laid down in accordance with paragraph 1, arising from the Regulation and the contract.
	Any new participants in an indirect action that is already running shall accede to the contract in accordance with the arrangements provided and shall then have a participant’s rights and obligations in relation to the Community, as laid down in accordance with paragraph 1, arising from the Regulation and the contract.
Justification The contract should enter into force on signature by the Commission and coordinator. The other partners accede to it later and on accession will have the rights and obligations of a participant in relations with the Community.
Amendment 35 Article 12, paragraph 2
2.   The contract shall establish the rights and obligations of participants in accordance with this Decision, and in particular the arrangements for the technical, technological and financial monitoring of the indirect action, for the updating of its objectives, for changes in consortium membership, for the payment of the Community financial contribution and, if applicable, conditions for the eligibility of any necessary expenditure, as well as rules for dissemination and use.	2.   The contract shall establish the rights and obligations of all participants in accordance with this Decision, and in particular the arrangements for the technical, technological and financial monitoring of the indirect action, for the updating of its objectives, for changes in consortium membership, for the payment of the Community financial contribution and, if applicable, conditions for the eligibility of any necessary expenditure, as well as rules for dissemination and use.
Justification It is important that the rights and obligations of additional participants, who may join the consortium at a later date, are covered in the conditions of the original contract between core partners and the Commission.
Amendment 36 Article 12, paragraph 3
3.   In order to ensure the protection of the financial interests of the Community, appropriate penalties shall be included in the contracts.	3.   In order to ensure the protection of the financial interests of the Community, appropriate penalties shall be included in the contracts, as defined in Regulation No 2988/95 on protecting the Communities’ financial interests.
Justification The addition is not essential as the relevant regulation will be applied even without the reference here. But it makes the wording more user-friendly, since those unfamiliar with the regulation can now find out what ‘appropriate penalties’ means.
Amendment 37 Article 12 a (new)
	Article 12a
	Consortium contract
	1.   Participants in an indirect action shall regulate their relations with one another in a consortium contract.
	Agreements concluded in the consortium contract must keep to the framework set out in this Regulation and may not contradict the contract concluded with the Commission. The detailed form of the agreements shall otherwise be for the participants to determine.
	2.   The consortium contract shall in accordance with this Regulation govern at least the following points:
	∙   appointment and duties of the coordinator
	∙   liability and compensation payments to one another and third parties
	∙   any supplementary agreements to the rules on dissemination and use, provided they are admissible under this Regulation and the contract
	∙   settlement of disputes and agreed place of jurisdiction and law applicable.
	3.   The Commission shall also publish an instruction leaflet on other points that may be settled by the consortium contract.
	To this end the Commission shall consult with interested parties from the Member States and the Associated States.
	4.   While a project is running, amendments to the consortium contract that affect the project’s implementation must be notified to the Commission. The Commission may object to such amendments within 30 days of notification.
Justification Many difficulties that come up in the course of a consortium’s collaboration can be avoided if the questions of liability, intellectual property, access etc. are settled in a consortium contract between the participants from the outset. To this end the Commission should publish an instruction leaflet after consulting with interested parties from the Member States and the Associated applicant States.
Amendment 38 Article 12 b (new)
	Article 12b
	Coordinator
	The coordinator shall have the following minimum duties, the details being set out in the consortium contract:
	∙   contacts with the Commission
	∙   administration of the financial resources received from the Commission
	∙   submission of reports and implementation plans to the Commission.
Justification Introducing the coordinator creates a need to define the coordinator’s duties.
Amendment 39 Article 13
1.   In accordance with the terms of the contract, and with its own organisation arrangements, the consortium shall ensure the technical implementation of the indirect action, with the participants being jointly and severally liable.	1.   The Community financial contribution shall be paid to the coordinator, in accordance with the arrangements stipulated in the contract. He shall administer the Community financial contribution in accordance with the contract and any decisions taken by the participants on the basis of the consortium contract concerning the allocation of the financial contribution to participants and activities.
2.    The Community financial contribution to an indirect action shall be paid, in accordance with the arrangements stipulated in the contract, to the participant designated by the consortium and approved by the Commission.	2.   Technical implementation of the indirect action shall be the collective responsibility of the participants. Each participant shall also be liable for the use of the Community financial contribution in proportion to his share of the project up to a maximum of the total payments he has received.
3.   Subject to the arrangements provided for in the contract based on the type of the instrument and the extent of the contribution made by participants:	3.   In the event of the total or partial failure of a contribution from one or more participants the remaining participants shall as a priority ensure that the indirect action is continued, if necessary with such adjustment of the contract as is required, though adjustment his is by no means essential. If continuation is impossible or rejected by the participants, thus creating a financial disadvantage for the Community, the Commission may, without prejudice to any claim on failing participants, unless the consortium has been able to identify the defaulting participant and to report that participant to the Commission within six weeks, make a claim on the participants within the limits of paragraph 2, second sentence. When investigating the financial disadvantage the Commission shall take into account the work already undertaken and results obtained.
	The coordinator shall keep accounts making it possible to determine at any time what portion of the Community funds has been allocated to each participant for the purposes of the project. It shall communicate that information to the Commission every year.
(a)   each participant shall bear unlimited joint and several liability for the use made of the Community financial contribution allocated in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, except for the part allocated to the participants referred to in subparagraph (b);	deleted
(b)   a participant who cannot for legal reasons be held jointly and severally liable shall be liable only for that part of the Community financial contribution allocated specifically to it in accordance with paragraph 2.	deleted
4.    The Commission shall have recourse to the liability referred to in paragraph 3(a) only if the damage incurred by the Community has not been rectified by either the participant at fault or the consortium, on its own initiative, within a reasonable period of time.	4.   When determining the amount of the claim on a participant the Commission shall take into account the participant’s respective contribution to the activities in an indirect action in connection with which the failure occurred, and any share by the participant concerned in the causing of the failure.
5.   When several legal entities are grouped in a common legal entity acting as a single participant in accordance with Article 5(5), that legal entity shall take on the duties outlined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article and shall be liable to the Community, notwithstanding the arrangements signed between the legal entities forming the common legal entity.	deleted
Justification The principle of unlimited joint and several liability has been strongly criticised by the participants. So its extent is here curtailed because that system would place participants on a footing of de facto inequality, given that, if a problem were to arise, the Commission would, as a matter of course, take action against large participants deemed to be solvent. It applies to the portion of Community funds allocated to each individual participant, since liability for the amount paid out by the Commission is split among all participants in proportion to their participation in the project and up to the amount of the sums which they have received. Information on those points will need to appear in the project follow-up documents which a consortium will send to the Commission every year.
Amendment 40 Article 14
In accordance with Annex III to the 2002-2006 framework programme, and within the limits of the Community framework for State aid for research and development, the Community financial contribution may take three distinct forms, as follows:	In accordance with Annex III to the 2002-2006 framework programme, and within the limits of the Community framework for State aid for research and development, the Community financial contribution may take the following form:
(a)   For networks of excellence, it shall take the form of a grant for integration, the amount of which is determined in relation to the value of the capacities and resources which all the participants propose to integrate. It shall complement the resources deployed by the participants in order to carry out the joint programme of activities.	(a)   For networks of excellence, it shall take the form of a grant for integration. This shall include not only the cost for the new RTD activities initiated with the network of excellence but also the accompanying necessary integration of participants at European level. The grant shall be made for up to 100 % of the relevant expenditure. It shall complement the resources deployed by the participants in order to carry out the joint implementation plan.
The contribution shall be paid with regard to the execution of the joint programme of activities and on the basis of those expenses relating to it which are in addition to those borne by the participants themselves and which are certified by an external auditor or, in the case of public legal entities, a competent public officer.	The contribution shall be paid with regard to the execution of the joint implementation plan and on the basis of those expenses relating to it which are in addition to those borne by the participants themselves and which are certified by an external auditor or, in the case of public legal entities, its formal – independent – public officer (i.e. internal auditor).
(b)   For some actions to promote human resources and mobility and some specific support actions, except for the indirect actions covered by Article 9(2)(b), it may take the form of a lump sum payment.	(b)   For some actions to promote human resources and mobility and some specific support actions, except for the indirect actions covered by Article 9(2)(b), it may take the form of a lump sum payment.
(c)   For integrated projects and the other instruments, except for those covered by points (a) and (b) and indirect actions covered by Article 9(2)(b), it shall take the form of a grant to the budget, calculated as a percentage of the budget allocated by the participants to carry out the indirect action, adapted according to the type of activity.	(c)   For integrated projects and the other instruments, except for those covered by points (a) and (b) and indirect actions covered by Article 9(2)(b), it shall take the form of a grant to the budget, calculated as a percentage of the budget allocated by the participants to carry out the indirect action, adapted according to the type of activity and guided by the cost model used by the participant concerned.
The contract shall specify the expenses needed to implement the indirect action, which have to be certified by an external auditor or, in the case of public legal entities, a competent public officer.	The contract shall specify the expenses needed to implement the indirect action, which have to be certified by an external auditor or, in the case of public legal entities, its formal – independent – public officer (i.e. internal auditor).
The contract may lay down average rates by type of expenditure or pre-set lump sums as well as, with the agreement of the participants, a value by activity which shall be closely approximate to the expenses incurred.	(ca)   Except in the cases governed by subparagraph (b) the contract may in exceptional, well-founded cases lay down average rates by type of expenditure or pre-set lump sums or, with the agreement of the participants, a value by activity which shall be closely approximate to the expenses incurred.
	(cb)   The Community contribution shall be paid in accordance with the requirements of the joint implementation plan and the contract in regular advance payments up to a maximum totalling 85 % of the full amount. The Commission shall pay the balance to the coordinator after approval of the project output within a period of no more than 60 days.
	(cc)   Costs for management of the consortium shall in addition to the costs of the indirect action be reimbursed up to 100% of the costs incurred and shall include the cost of audit certificates. In this case legal entities which participate in the indirect action on an additional cost basis may claim the full costs they have incurred for management, in so far as they can produce detailed evidence of them. The contracts shall lay down a maximum percentage of management costs in relation to the Community contribution.
	(cd)   A share of no more than 7% shall be reserved for administrative costs by the consortium.
Justification The Commission is proposing to pay a lump sum for networks of excellence calculated on the basis of the resources deployed. This is difficult for participants who have previously participated on the basis of the additional cost model, particularly universities, where deployed resources are hard to compute. In cases where a public entity has an official – independent – officer, [i.e. internal auditor of the public entity], he may conduct the audit. A ceiling should be set for the administrative costs of the consortium.
Amendment 41 Article 15
1.   Within the limits of the Community financial contribution and regardless of the instrument, the membership of a consortium may, on its own initiative or in execution of the contract, be modified with the agreement of the Commission, and in particular be extended to include any legal entity contributing to the implementation of the indirect action.	1.   The consortium may modify its membership on its own initiative, and in particular may extend it to include any legal entity contributing to the implementation of the indirect action.
With the exception of the changes described in paragraph 2, the consortium shall identify new legal entities on such terms as it deems appropriate, or in accordance with the contract.	If the consortium proposes to incorporate new participants, after carrying out an evaluation on its own responsibility, the Commission may object within six weeks of notification of this modification.
	New participants shall accede to the contract with the same rights and obligations as the other members.
	Any new participant must sign the consortium contract in order to be eligible for Community grants.
2.   The joint programme of activities for a network of excellence or the execution plan for an integrated project shall specify which changes in the membership of the consortium shall require the prior publication of a competitive call.	2.   The consortium contract shall specify which changes in the membership of the consortium shall require the prior publication of a competitive call.
The consortium shall publish the competitive call and advertise it widely using specific information support, particularly Internet sites on the 2002-2006 framework programme, the specialist press and brochures.	The consortium shall where necessary publish the competitive call and advertise it widely using specific information support, particularly Internet sites on the 2002-2006 framework programme, the specialist press and brochures, as specified in the contract and including any research and development information systems funded by the Commission .
The consortium shall evaluate offers in the light of the criteria which governed the evaluation and selection of the indirect action, defined according to the terms of Article 10(3) and (4), and with the assistance of independent experts appointed by the consortium on the basis of the criteria described in Article 11(2)(b).	The consortium shall evaluate offers in the light of the criteria which governed the evaluation and selection of the indirect action, defined according to the terms of Article 10(3) and (4), and with the assistance of independent experts appointed by the consortium on the basis of the criteria described in Article 11(2)(b).
In accordance with paragraph 1, the Commission may object if and when the consortium proposes, following this evaluation, to extend its membership to new participants.	2a.   Participants who withdraw shall by agreement with the remaining participants either be replaced by a new participant or their tasks shall be redistributed among the remaining participants. A participant’s withdrawal shall not affect access rights of the consortium under Articles 25(2) and 26(2) (see amended proposal COM(2002) 822) or the Community grant initially awarded to the project. As regards the results of the action, an interim assessment shall be made to determine the extent to which the participant withdrawing from the consortium will retain its rights in the results.
Justification Arises partly from introduction of the consortium contract. On the Commission objection to new participants, it makes sense to set a time-limit here so that the consortium obtains legal certainty as soon as possible. Finally, rules need laying down for the withdrawal of participants as this is a frequent occurrence. What concerns information, as it stands, this can be interpreted as neglecting the need for a centralised service that disseminates all these calls for proposals. Having calls dispersed throughout many different web sites without a central information service would preclude transparency and make the work of information multipliers impossible.
Amendment 42 Article 16, paragraph 2
It shall do so by way of a call for proposals, restricted, if necessary, to indirect actions under way, after the termination of an evaluation conducted in accordance with Article 10.	It shall do so in the case of the indirect actions referred to in Articles 9(1) and 9(3)(new)(c) by way of a call for proposals, which the Commission shall determine, publish and disseminate in accordance with Article 9(1) and which shall be restricted, if necessary, to indirect actions already under way. The Commission shall evaluate and select supplementary proposals in accordance with Article 10.
Justification Explicit reference to the indirect actions is needed for clarity and to restrict the scope of Article 16.
Amendment 43 Article 17, paragraph 2
The consortium shall evaluate and select the applications received in accordance with the principles of transparency, fairness and impartiality and also with the terms stipulated in the contract.	The consortium shall evaluate and select the applications received in accordance with the principles of transparency, fairness and impartiality and also with the terms stipulated in the contract and Articles 10 and 11 of these rules of participation.
Justification It is important to ensure, to maintain the perception of transparency and fairness, that the rules of participation are applied throughout the partnership, and that participants joining at a later date are afforded the full legal protection provided by these rules.
Amendment 44 Article 18, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2 a (new)
	2a.   The Commission shall ensure that all the information supplied to it on existing know-how and knowledge expected or acquired in the framework of an indirect action is treated in strict confidence.
Justification Confidential treatment of the consortia’s know-how must be safeguarded by the Commission.
Amendment 45 Article 18, paragraph 3, subparagraph 1 a (new)
	1a.   The Treaty shall specify the conditions in which participants may object to a technological audit of the use and dissemination of the knowledge by certain authorised representatives of the Commission.
Justification To protect the participants, they should have the opportunity to object to an audit of the use and dissemination of the knowledge by Commission representatives.
Amendment 46 Article 18 a (new)
	Article 18a
	Information made available to Member States and Associated States
	The provision of information in this way shall in no case justify transferring the rights and obligations of the Commission and participants, as laid down in Articles 21 to 28 (see amended proposal COM(2002) 822), to the Member States or Associated States which receive such information.
	In so far as such general information is not made accessible to the public by the participants or conveyed without the requirement to maintain secrecy, the Member States and Associated States shall be subject to the Commission’s secrecy requirements laid down in this Regulation.
Justification To ensure coordination between national RTD programmes and the framework programme, Member States must be able to obtain information on the projects being carried out by the Commission in specific fields. In doing so the principles of confidentiality must be respected.
Amendment 47 Article 20, paragraph 2
2.   Knowledge arising from work carried out under indirect actions fully funded by the Community shall in principle be the property of the Community. Knowledge arising from work carried out under indirect actions partly funded by the Community shall be the property of the participants carrying out the work leading to that knowledge.	2.   Knowledge arising from work carried out under indirect actions provided for in Article 9(2)(b) and (d) shall be the property of the Community. Knowledge arising from work carried out under other indirect actions shall be the property of the participants carrying out the work leading to that knowledge.
Justification Self-explanatory.
Amendment 48 Article 20, paragraph 3
3.   Where several participants have jointly carried out work generating knowledge, they shall have joint ownership of such knowledge and shall agree among themselves on the allocation and the terms of exercising the ownership of the knowledge in accordance with the provisions of this Decision and of the contract.	3.   Where several participants have jointly carried out work generating the above knowledge, and in so far as their respective share of the work is not determinable, they shall have joint ownership of such knowledge and shall agree among themselves on the allocation and the terms of exercising the ownership of the knowledge in particular in the consortium contract in accordance with the provisions of this Decision and of the contract.
Justification Arises from introduction of the consortium contract.
Amendment 49 Article 20, paragraph 4
4.   Knowledge arising from work carried out under cooperative or collective research projects shall be the joint property of the SMEs or the enterprise groupings, which shall agree among themselves on the allocation and the terms of exercising the ownership of the knowledge in accordance with the provisions of this Decision and of the contract.	4.   Knowledge arising from work carried out under cooperative or collective research projects shall be the joint property of the SMEs or the enterprise groupings, which shall agree on the allocation and the terms of exercising the ownership of the knowledge in particular in the consortium contract in accordance with the provisions of this Decision and of the contract.
Justification Arises from introduction of the consortium contract.
Amendment 50 Article 20, paragraph 6, subparagraph 1
6.   Where a participant transfers ownership of knowledge, it shall take steps or conclude agreements to pass on its obligations under this Decision and the contract to the assignee. As long as the participant is required to grant access rights, it shall give prior notice to the Commission and the other participants in the same indirect action of the envisaged assignment and the assignee.	6.   Where a participant transfers ownership of knowledge, it shall take steps or conclude agreements to pass on its obligations, in particular concerning the dissemination and use of the knowledge rights, under this Decision and the contract to the assignee1. As long as the participant is required to grant access rights, it shall give prior notice to the Commission and the other participants in the same indirect action of the envisaged assignment and the assignee. This transfer shall not include any reciprocal access rights as granted to participants in the consortium.
	1 See also Council Decision of 22 December 1998 on the rules for participation in the Fifth Framework Programme for Research, OJ L 26, 1.2.1999, p. 46, Article 15(2), fourth paragraph.
Justification Arises from introduction of the consortium contract. The reciprocity clause originates in the fifth framework programme’s participation rules and can be incorporated in view of positive experience with them. The transfer of knowledge and its attending obligations to a third party should not in any way compromise other participants or involve the granting of access rights to non-participants. .
Amendment 51 Article 20, paragraph 6, subparagraph 2
The Commission may object to any transfer of ownership to third parties, in particular to those not established in a Member State or an Associated State, if such a transfer is not in accordance with the interests of developing the competitiveness of Community industry, or is inconsistent with ethical principles, in particular those described in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.	The Commission or other participants may object within 30 days of notification to such a transfer. The Commission may object to any transfer of ownership rights to third parties, in particular to those not established in a Member State or an Associated State, if such a transfer is not in accordance with the interests of developing the competitiveness of Community industry, or is inconsistent with ethical principles, in particular those described in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The other participants may object to any transfer of ownership rights if this affects their access rights.
Justification The right of objection should apply generally for a limited period so that legal certainty prevails.
Amendment 52 Article 20, paragraph 6 a (new)
	6a.   A non-exclusive, royalty-free right of access to the knowledge of an indirect action shall be granted for research and training purposes.
Justification Facilitates transparency and access to the framework programme for those interested.
Amendment 53 Article 21, paragraph 1
1.   Where appropriate, the owner of knowledge shall provide adequate and effective protection for knowledge that is capable of industrial or commercial application, with particular regard to the legitimate interests of the participants concerned and in accordance with the contract and any applicable legislation.	1.   The owner of knowledge shall, where appropriate and financially relevant, provide for its adequate and effective legal protection, with due regard to the applicable legal provisions, particularly under Community law, the rules laid down in the consortium contract and the legitimate interests of the participants concerned.
Justification Arises from introduction of the consortium contract. Also clearer.
Amendment 54 Article 21, paragraph 3
3.   A participant may publish or allow the publication of data, on whatever medium, concerning knowledge it owns provided that this does not affect the protection of that knowledge. The Commission and the other participants in the same indirect action shall be given prior notice of any planned publication, and may object to it if this would adversely affect the protection of knowledge.	3.   A participant may publish or allow the publication, on whatever medium, of data concerning knowledge it owns or knowledge acquired during work in connection with cooperative or collective research projects, provided that this does not affect the protection of that knowledge. The Commission and the other participants in the same indirect action shall be given prior written notice of any planned publication. A copy of such data shall on request be made available to them within 30 days of the request. The Commission and the other participants may object to publication within a further period of 30 days from receipt of the data, if they consider the protection of their knowledge to be adversely affected.
Justification The right of objection should apply generally for a limited period so that legal certainty prevails.
Amendment 55 Article 22, paragraph 1
1.   The participants and the Community shall use or cause to be used the knowledge arising from the direct actions or indirect actions, which they own, in accordance with the interests of the participants concerned. The participants shall set out the terms of use in a detailed and verifiable manner.	1.   The participants and the Community shall use or cause to be used the knowledge arising from the direct actions or indirect actions, which they own, in accordance with their interest and subject to the interest of the other participants. The participants shall set out the terms of use in a detailed and verifiable manner and shall make the necessary arrangements between themselves, preferably in the consortium contract, in accordance with this Regulation and the contract.
Justification As it stands, this article gives potentially too much influence to other partners in determining the uses a partner can give to their knowledge, and could lead to difficulties in the publication of the research results owned by HEIs and public research organisations. By limiting the right of other partners to determine the use of another participant’s knowledge to that which affects their legitimate interest both academic freedom and commercial interests are protected. It is important to ensure that know-how gained in research projects is used in the interest of the participants.
Amendment 56 Article 22, paragraph 2, subparagraph 1
2.   If knowledge is suitable for dissemination or if it is not used in accordance with paragraph 1, the participants shall ensure that it is disseminated within a period laid down by the Community. Should the participants fail to do so, the Commission may disseminate the knowledge. Particular account shall be taken of the following factors:	2.   If dissemination of the knowledge will not adversely affect its protection or use, the participants shall ensure that it is disseminated within a period laid down by the Community. Should the participants fail to do so, the Commission may disseminate the knowledge. Particular account shall be taken of the following factors:
Justification The dissemination of knowledge is not the Commission’s primary task. It only does so if the participants refuse to allow the use or dissemination of knowledge arising out of taxation-funded RTD activities.
Amendment 57 Article 22 a (new)
	Article 22a
	Information and communication actions
	At the end of the indirect action, the participants shall carry out, with the support of the European Community, any appropriate information actions aimed at explaining to the public, in a clear and simple way:
	-   the goal of the indirect action,
	-   the European added value,
	-   the results obtained, their impact and benefits for the citizens.
	Information and communication actions must be carried out, especially, for 'sensitive' sectors affecting the lives of citizens, such as health, biotechnologies, nuclear energy.
Justification It is essential that the public is informed of the results of the framework programme in a simple and clear way, especially for those sectors affecting the life or direct interests of all citizens, such as health, biotechnology or nuclear energy. These information actions should be conducted, with the support of the European Community, under the responsibility of the participant, possibly with recourse to any appropriate experts in communications (specialised journalists, etc).
Amendment 58 Article 24, paragraph 1, subparagraph 1
1.   Access rights shall be granted on request. The granting of access rights may be made conditional on the conclusion of specific agreements aimed at ensuring that they are used only for the intended purpose, and of appropriate undertakings as to confidentiality. Participants may also conclude agreements with the purpose, in particular, of granting additional or more favourable access rights, including access rights to third parties, or specifying the requirements applicable to access rights, but not restricting the latter. Such agreements shall comply with the applicable competition rules.	1.   Access rights shall be granted on written request in accordance with Articles 26 and 27 (see amended proposal COM(2002) 822). The granting of access rights may be made conditional on the conclusion of specific agreements, in particular in the consortium contract, aimed at ensuring that they are used only for the intended purpose, and of appropriate undertakings as to confidentiality. Participants may also conclude agreements with the purpose, in particular, of granting additional or more favourable access rights, including access rights to third parties, and, in particular, to enterprises associated with participants, or specifying the requirements applicable to access rights, but not restricting the latter. Such agreements shall comply with the applicable competition rules.
Justification Associated enterprises are of key importance for cross-fertilisation and the exchange of know-how for the benefit of participants. It is therefore quite inconceivable and in no way customary for participants to allow 'Chinese walls' in their group of enterprises. Enterprises associated with participants therefore merit special mention, particularly as they usually play a crucial part for participants when exploiting the know-how deriving from indirect action .
Amendment 59 Article 24, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2
The Commission may object to any grant of access rights to third parties, in particular to those not established in a Member State or an Associated State, if such grant is not in accordance with the interests of developing the competitiveness of European industry, or ethical principles, in particular those described in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.	The Commission may object to any grant of access rights to third parties, in particular to those not established in a Member State or an Associated State, if such grant is not in accordance with the interests of developing the competitiveness of the dynamic, knowledge-based European economy, or ethical principles, in particular those described in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Justification See amendment to Article 20, paragraph 6, second subparagraph. This amendment by Parliament is difficult to reconcile with the Lisbon Summit's strategic objective of making Europe the most competitive and dynamic, knowledge-based economy in the world. A knowledge-based economy does not after all always need to mean that industrial production must also take place within Europe. One approach could be to require the revenue generated by know-how to be returned to Europe. The development of licensing programmes can best be left to the owners of know-how. The proposed right of objection by the Commission makes for legal uncertainty with licensing agreements that have already been signed being verified retrospectively by the Commission.
Amendment 60 Article 24, paragraph 2
2.   Access rights to pre-existing know-how shall be granted provided that the participant concerned is free to grant them.	2.   Access rights to pre-existing know-how shall be granted on request to other participants provided that the participant concerned is free to grant them.
Justification Clarity.
Amendment 61 Article 24, paragraph 3
3.   A participant may explicitly exclude specific pre-existing know-how from the obligation to grant access rights, by means of a written agreement between the participants before the participant concerned signs the contract or before a new participant joins the indirect action. The other participants may only withhold their agreement if they demonstrate that their legitimate interests will be significantly impaired thereby.	3.   A participant may explicitly exclude specific pre-existing know-how from the obligation to grant access rights, by means of a written agreement of the participants, if appropriate in the consortium contract, before the participant concerned signs the contract or before a new participant joins the indirect action. The other participants may only withhold their agreement if they demonstrate that implementation of the indirect action or their legitimate interests will be significantly impaired thereby.
Justification Self-explanatory.
Amendment 62 Article 25, paragraph 1
1.   Participants in the same indirect action shall enjoy access rights to the knowledge arising from work carried out under the indirect action and to the pre-existing know-how needed to carry out their own work under that indirect action. Access rights to knowledge shall be granted on a royalty-free basis. Access rights to pre-existing know-how shall be granted on a royalty-free basis, unless other conditions have been agreed before signature of the contract.	1.   Participants in the same indirect action shall enjoy access rights to the knowledge arising from work carried out under the indirect action and to the pre-existing know-how, if that knowledge and pre-existing know-how are needed to carry out their own work under that indirect action. Access rights to knowledge shall be granted on a royalty-free basis. Access rights to pre-existing know-how shall be granted on a royalty-free basis, unless other conditions have been laid down, particularly in the consortium contract, before signature of the contract.
Justification Necessary as a result of introduction of the consortium contract.
Amendment 63 Article 26, paragraphs 1 and 2
1.   Participants in the same indirect action shall enjoy access rights to the knowledge arising from work carried out under the indirect action and to the pre-existing know-how needed to use their own knowledge. Access rights to knowledge shall be granted on a royalty-free basis, unless other conditions were agreed upon before signature of the contract. Access rights to pre-existing know-how shall be granted on non-discriminatory conditions to be agreed.	1.   Participants in the same indirect action shall enjoy access rights to the knowledge arising from work carried out under the indirect action and to the pre-existing know-how, if that knowledge and pre-existing know-how are needed to use their own knowledge. Access rights to knowledge shall be granted on a royalty-free basis, unless other conditions were laid down, particularly in the consortium contract, before signature of the contract. Access rights to pre-existing know-how shall be granted on appropriate, non-discriminatory conditions to be agreed.
2.   Subject to the participants’ legitimate interests, access rights may be requested under the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 until two years after the end of the indirect action or after the termination of the participation of a participant, whichever falls earlier, unless the participants in the same indirect action agree on a longer period.	2.   Subject to the participants’ legitimate interests, access rights may be requested under the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 until two years after the end of the indirect action or after the termination of the participation of a participant, whichever falls earlier, unless there is provision, particularly in the consortium contract, for a longer period.
Justification Necessary as a result of introduction of the consortium contract.
Amendment 64 Article 26, paragraph 2 a (new)
	2a.   A participant who does not generally undertake commercial activities and who is unable to exploit the knowledge he has generated may decide on his own to grant access rights to such knowledge to the other participants with a view to its exploitation on financial or similar conditions that are reasonable and acceptable in relation to its contribution to the project and the potential of that knowledge. This participant shall not use such knowledge for the purpose of exploitation. The negotiation of the conditions shall not delay the granting of access rights.
Justification Universities and other public research organisations must be able to license those results to others for commercial exploitation on a royalty-paying basis. This right has to be set out clearly rather than implied. This clause is present in the FP5 model contract for RTD activities.

• [1] OJ C 103E, 30.4.2002, pp. 266-291.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The rules for participation in the sixth framework programme for research and the dissemination of research results differ markedly from those in the previous five programmes. The Commission has a number of reasons for this:

1.   simple and comprehensible rules – the Commission’s aim is to design the rules for participation to make them easily accessible, whence the absence of an implementing regulation;

2.   faster and slimmer administration – by cutting back and scrapping procedures (such as prior financial inspection) the aim is to reduce the time-lag before funds are first paid;

3.   protecting the Community’s financial interests – the Commission would like to reduce the budget error rate and obviously take account of the Court of Auditors’ remarks. Any financial risk must be avoided and transferred to participants in research projects.

The rapporteur welcomes the principles of simpler rules, slimmer administration and protection of the Community’s financial interests. It sounds so sensible that no one could seriously object to it. But regrettably, in some cases anyway these aims are pursued in such a way that they contradict the most important aim, which is to promote innovative research in Europe.

The problem areas are, specifically:

• ∙Liability: The proposal provides for each individual participant to be jointly and severally liable for the funds from the European budget, even for funds that other participants are managing. In extreme cases this could mean the following: a participant receives funds from the Commission and has to file for bankruptcy shortly afterward. All European research funding is included in his bankruptcy case. The Commission tries to recover the funds from the other participants, but fails. It can then turn to the most accessible participant and claim the entire sum from him (joint and several liability). This is unacceptable not only to small businesses and universities, but also to large, well-funded participants. As a result the business managers of universities will not permit institute directors to conclude contracts with the Commission when they involve such risks. Another solution is needed here.
• ∙Consortium contract: This contract regulating internal relations in a consortium has become common practice. Most consortia conclude an agreement of this kind. It has the advantage that they are compelled to recognise many possible problems at the beginning of a project and find solutions to them. But the Commission does not so much as mention such contracts in its proposal. This raises the risk of further projects that do not clarify matters from the start and so run into disputes later – and do so on the basis of the decision (by the Council in the fifth FRP, by Parliament and the Council in the sixth). True, every consortium contract will be different and reflect the requirements of the participants and the project. But there must be minimum conditions and a checklist for the contract. It should specify, for instance, what happens when a participant withdraws, a new one joins, and so on.

By changing the liability rules and introducing the consortium contract a number of amendments become necessary. The liability rules were one of the Commission’s main pillars. As the Commission is now drawn more closely into taking responsibility, improvements are needed elsewhere, to ensure the Commission is better informed and provide for the relevant inspections.

The consortium contract must be mentioned in various places, minimum conditions must be settled and the coordinator’s role defined.

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CULTURE, YOUTH, EDUCATION, THE MEDIA AND SPORT

22 April 2002

for the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy

on the amended proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results for the implementation of the European Community framework programme 2002-2006

(COM(2001) 822 – C5‑0017/2001 – 2001/0202(COD))

Draftsman: Myrsini Zorba

PROCEDURE

The Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport appointed Myrsini Zorba draftsman at its meeting of 16 October 2001.

It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 25 March and 17 April 2002.

At the latter meeting it adopted the following amendments unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: Michel Rocard, chairman; Vasco Graça Moura, vice‑chairman; Mario Mauro, vice‑chairman; Theresa Zabell, vice‑chairman; Myrsini Zorba, draftsman; Alexandros Alavanos, Konstantinos Alyssandrakis (for Lucio Manisco), Ole Andreasen (for Marieke Sanders-ten Holte), Pedro Aparicio Sánchez, Christopher J.P. Beazley, Geneviève Fraisse, Maria Martens, Pietro-Paolo Mennea, Juan Ojeda Sanz, Barbara O'Toole, Christa Prets, Giorgio Ruffolo, Gianni Vattimo and Sabine Zissener.

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

1.   The Commission proposal

The Commission proposal concerns the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities and for the dissemination of research results for the implementation of the European Community framework programme 2002-2006. The overall impression of the approach taken by the Commission is positive, as it seeks to facilitate access to funding by simplifying the rules and increasing operational flexibility for recipients. Naturally, as a counterpart to this increased autonomy for research bodies, greater care will need to be taken to ensure that the specific targets of the projects funded are reached. This should include the circulation and dissemination of the results achieved.

A brief examination of the text shows at a glance that Article 1 of the proposal for a decision defines the terms used in the text, amongst which 'consortium', 'participant', 'international organisation', 'small and medium-sized enterprises', etc. However, it does not include the term 'university', which nevertheless appears in the title of the proposal. This omission remains throughout the text and begs the question of whether or not the Commission made this choice on a purely legal/linguistic basis. Given the contribution that universities can and must make in the field of research and, above all, the multifaceted role they can play in research, higher education and cooperation with society, especially in their own regions, this is a valid point.

2.   The amendments tabled

The Committee on Culture is only indirectly involved in the procedures relating to the implementation of the 6th framework programme for research. It has therefore tabled several amendments essentially to stress both the importance of the interdisciplinary nature of research and the importance of disseminating the results not only amongst those involved in the work but, more generally, with a view to achieving the ambitious objective set out in the Lisbon strategy, namely that of establishing a society based on knowledge.

This twin-track mission in the public interest should involve all fields of research covered by the framework programme, particularly those areas where scientific progress has a greater impact on people's lives or where people's confidence in science and scientists needs to be strengthened.

Obviously, this task of informing the public should be carried out directly by the recipient bodies impartially, simply and without the use of propaganda. The Commission should be asked to ensure that this 'mission' is carried out properly, by encouraging the exchange of best practices and, if necessary, by drawing up blueprints for information campaigns, which clearly indicate the aim of the research, the results achieved, the tangible future benefits and the European added value of the research.

As regards the question of how the information should be disseminated, it may be recalled that according to Eurobarometer 55, some 62% of European citizens prefer to receive information on the EU via television. However, with regard to the dissemination of the results of the framework programme, it would be advisable to allow each body responsible for research projects to decide on a case-by-case basis. The Commission could be asked to inform the recipient bodies of the resources it could provide with a view to encouraging dissemination of information which is, as far as possible, targeted to the type of public that information is trying to reach (e.g., university circuits, conferences and seminars, radio and TV programmes, press conferences, the Internet, etc.).

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport calls on the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Commission[1]	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Article 2, point u
(u)    dissemination means the disclosure of knowledge by any appropriate means other than publication resulting from the formalities for protecting knowledge,	(u)    dissemination means the disclosure of knowledge by any appropriate means other than publication resulting from the formalities for protecting knowledge, including information and communication actions;
Justification Information and communication actions related to research projects funded by the European Community must be considered an important opportunity to develop, on a large scale and in a bottom up way, the Lisbon strategy on innovation and knowledge.
Amendment 2 Article 5, paragraph 2
2.   For networks of excellence and integrated projects, the minimum number of participants shall not be less than three independent legal entities established in three different Member States or Associated States, of which at least two shall be Member States or Associated candidate countries.	2.   For networks of excellence, the minimum number of participants shall not be less than five (three for integrated projects) independent legal entities established in five (three for integrated projects) different Member States or Associated States, of which at least two shall be Member States or Associated candidate countries.
Justification Within the framework programme, it is important to provide for a critical mass at European level for the ‘excellence network’.
Amendment 3 Article 8, paragraph 2
2.   At the time when they present their proposal, participants shall have at least the potential resources needed to carry out the indirect action, and shall specify the relevant source.	2.   At the time when they present their proposal, participants shall demonstrate that they have at least the potential resources needed to carry out the indirect action, and shall specify the relevant source.
As work progresses, participants shall have the resources as and when needed to carry out the indirect action.
Justification This amendment is aimed at clarifying the text proposed by the Commission, by introducing the obligation for the participants to demonstrate that they have the potential resources at the time they present their proposal. The second part of the proposal is more an economic need than an obligation, so it can be considered redundant.
Amendment 4 Article 9, paragraph 1
1.   Proposals for indirect actions shall be submitted under the terms of calls for proposals published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and, as far as possible, widely advertised by other means.	1.   Proposals for indirect actions shall be submitted under the terms of calls for proposals published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
	As far as possible, calls for proposals shall be widely advertised by means such as the Internet and professional publications.
Justification It is better to reformulate the text by separating the information on the call for proposals from the rules the participants must follow in submitting their proposals.
Amendment 5 Article 10, paragraph 1, points c, d and e
(c)   added value to the Community, including the critical mass of resources mobilised, the expected impact or contribution to Community policies;	(c)   added value to the Community, the expected impact or contribution to Community policies;
(d)   quality of the plan for the use or dissemination of the knowledge, potential for promoting innovation, and ability to manage intellectual property;	(d)   quality of the plan for the use and dissemination of the knowledge, including potential for promoting innovation, ability to manage intellectual property, and appropriate information actions;
(e)   ability to successfully carry out the indirect action, assessed in terms of resources, competencies and organisation.	(e)   ability to successfully carry out the indirect action, assessed in terms of resources, competencies and organisation, including the critical mass of resources mobilised.
Justification This amendment is aimed at improving the original text adding appropriate information actions to the selection criteria which must form part of the plan for the use and dissemination.
Amendment 6 Article 10, paragraph 1, point e a (new)
	(ea)   mobility and employment of young researchers and experienced researchers within the framework of the indirect action;
Justification It is essential to develop a common research area at European level. Mobility and opportunities for employment for young and experienced researchers can make an important contribution thereto.
Amendment 7 Article 10, paragraph 1, point e a (new)
	(ea)   interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity of the indirect action;
Justification It is increasingly important to reconnect the different specialised sectors of research by developing a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach. This element should also be taken into account in deciding on the value of a project to be funded by the European Community.
Amendment 8 Article 12, paragraph 2
2.   The contract shall establish the rights and obligations of participants in accordance with this Decision, and in particular the arrangements for the technical, technological and financial monitoring of the indirect action, for the updating of its objectives, for changes in consortium membership, for the payment of the Community financial contribution and, if applicable, conditions for the eligibility of any necessary expenditure, as well as rules for dissemination and use.	2.   The contract shall establish the rights and obligations of participants in accordance with this Decision, and in particular the arrangements for the technical, technological and financial monitoring of the indirect action, for the updating of its objectives, for changes in consortium membership, for the payment of the Community financial contribution and, if applicable, conditions for the eligibility of any necessary expenditure, as well as rules for use, dissemination within the research community, and communication and information to the public.
Justification Information and communication actions are important, as are actions related to dissemination and use of knowledge. Because of their public interest nature, they should be part of the contract between the participant and the European Community.
Amendment 9 Article 22 a (new)
	Article 22a
	At the end of the indirect action, the participants shall carry out, with the support of the European Community, any appropriate information actions aimed at explaining to the public, in a clear and simple way:
	-   the goal of the indirect action,
	-   the European added value,
	-   the results obtained, their impact and benefits for the citizens.
	Information and communication actions must be carried out, especially, for 'sensitive' sectors affecting the lives of citizens, such as health, biotechnologies, nuclear energy.
Justification It is essential that the public is informed of the results of the framework programme in a simple and clear way, especially for those sectors affecting the life or direct interests of all citizens, such as health, biotechnology or nuclear energy. These information actions should be conducted, with the support of the European Community, under the responsibility of the participant, possibly with recourse to any appropriate experts in communications (specialised journalists, etc).

• [1] OJ C ...