EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 25.7.2008 
SEC(2008) 2278 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
 
Proposal for a  
 
COUNCIL REGULATION  
 
on the Community legal framework for a European Research Infrastructure (ERI) 
  
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
{COM(2008) 467 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2279} 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction and policy background .........................................................................................4  
1.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. .................4 
1.2. Policy background ......................................................................................................... ...........5 
2. Procedural issues, expert groups and consultation of interested parties ...................................7 
2.1. The Impact Assessment Board............................................................................................... ...7 
2.2. Consultation of experts ................................................................................................... ..........7 
2.3. Consultation of stakeholders.............................................................................................. .......8 
2.4. Sounding Board and Inter-Services Group .............................................................................10 3. Problem definition .......................................................................................................... ........10 
3.1. Context................................................................................................................... .................10 
3.2. Critical role of research in frastructures for R&D in Europe...................................................11 
3.3. New challenges in the field of research infrastructures in Europe..........................................11 3.4. Nature of the issue and problem that require action ...............................................................12 3.5. Which groups or regions will be affected? .............................................................................13 3.6. Treaty base and subsidiarity principle .................................................................................... 13 
4. Objectives .................................................................................................................. .............14 
4.1. Policy objective.......................................................................................................... .............14 
4.2. Consistency with horizontal obj ectives of the European Union .............................................15 
5. Policy options.............................................................................................................. ............15 
5.1. Option 1: No specific action at European level ......................................................................16 5.2. Option 2: Coordination action at EU leve l for the development of best practices..................18 
5.3. Option 3: Development of Joint Undertakings .......................................................................19 
5.4. Option 4: Development of a dedicated legal framework at Community level........................20 6. Analysis of impacts of the policy options...............................................................................23 6.1. Economic, social and environmental impacts of research infrastructures ..............................24 6.2. Main strengths, weaknesses and im pacts of the different policy options ...............................26 
6.3. Overall conclusions and comparative a ssessment of the different policy options..................35 
7. Monitoring and evaluation................................................................................................... ...38 
7.1. Continuous monitoring ..................................................................................................... ......38 
7.2. Evaluation ................................................................................................................ ...............38 
EN 3   EN Annexes:  
1. Glossary 
2. List of ESFRI projects: future potential ERIs 
3. List of existing intergovernmental research organisations 
4. The ESFRI roadmap for Research Infrastructures 5. Report of the Workshop on Legal forms of European research infrastructures (March 2006) 
6. Summary of the Workshop on the most appr opriate legal instruments for ERIs (Dec 2006) 
7. Report of the Feasibility study on the creati on of a legal instrument for ERIs (June 2007) 
8. Report of the ERA Expert Group: Developi ng World-Class Research Infrastructures for the 
European Research Area (February 2007) 
EN 4   EN 1. INTRODUCTION AND POLICY BACKGROUND  
1.1. Introduction 
This Impact Assessment accompanies the propo sal for a "REGULATION on the Community legal 
framework for a European Research  Infrastructure (ERI)", which is included in the Commission 
Legislative and Work Programme 20081 as one of the priority initiatives2. Indeed, as a result of the 
institutional and public debate  following the 2007 Green Paper The European Research Area: New 
Perspectives3, a number of key areas have been identified where effective action in partnerships 
between Member States would have the potential to  deliver significant gains for Europe's research 
system and help to create a "fifth freedom" in Eu rope - the free movement of knowledge. In this 
document "Developing world class research infrastructur es" is put forward as one of the pillars of an 
ambitious ERA vision.  
The "Regulation on a Dedicated Legal Framework fo r new European Research Infrastructures" is one 
of five policy initiatives planned by the Commission in 2008 as a follow-up to the Green Paper. This 
EC Regulation aims to facilitate the formation of European consortia for the construction and 
operation of research facilities of pan-European  interest. Complementing national or inter-
governmental schemes, this Regulation would provi de an easy-to-use legal framework with high 
commonalities on key issues, while leaving enough flex ibility to individual cons ortia to develop rules 
for specific infrastructures.  
This initiative is responding to an explicit request from the Member States fo r the Commission to act 
in this domain following the publica tion, in October 2006, of the ESFRI4, roadmap 5 identifying 35 
major research infrastructure projects to be devel oped in the next 10 to 20 years. These European 
facilities would have a direct impact on the adva ncement of fundamental and applied knowledge. By 
providing efficient access to world-class scientific  knowledge for large communities of researchers 
and users they would also influence Europe's wi der competitiveness and understanding of society and 
the environment. This will also significantly incr ease the attractiveness of the European Research Area 
for researchers. 
This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and the text is 
prepared as a basis for comment and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission.  
                                                 
1 Commission Legislative and Work Programme 200 8 COM(2007) 640 final, Brussels, 23.10.2007 
2 Ref: 2008/RTD/034 
3 COM(2007) 161, GREEN PAPER - The European Research Area: New Perspectives 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/era /progress-on-debate_en.html  
4 ESFRI was set up in 2002. It brings together re presentatives from the EU Member States and 
Associated States and a represent ative of the European Commission. Its main scope is to support a 
coherent and strategy-led approach to policy-making on research infrastructures in Europe and to 
facilitate multilateral initiatives l eading to the better use and development of research infrastructures. 
Information on ESFRI and its activities is available at http://cordis.europa.eu/esfri/home.html  
5 The ESFRI roadmap for Research Infrastructures ( http://cordis.europa.eu/esfri/roadmap.htm ) deals with 
facilities, resources or services of a unique natur e that have been identified by European research 
communities to conduct top-level research activities. See annex 2 and 4. 
EN 5   EN 1.2. Policy background  
Since the Communication of the European Commission Towards a European Research Area  of 
January 2000 the idea of a common a European Research Area (ERA) has been the guiding principle 
for all Community R&D measures and a central pillar in realising the research goals of the Lisbon 
Strategy for growth, jobs and a dynamic and know ledge-based European economy. In this context, 
developing a European policy for research infr astructures has been the subject of high level 
discussions and reflections over the last few years.  
Research infrastructures play an increasing role in  the advancement of know ledge and technology and 
their exploitation. For example, radiation sources, data banks in genomics and data banks in social 
science, observatories for environmental sciences, sy stems of imaging or clean rooms for the study 
and development of new materials or nano-electr onics, are at the core of research and innovation 
processes. By offering unique research services to u sers from different countries, by attracting young 
people to science and through networking of facilities, research infrastructures help structuring the scientific community and play therefore a key role in the construction of an efficient research and 
innovation environment. Because of their ability to assemble a ‘critical mass’ of people and 
investment, they contribute to national, regiona l and European economic development. They are 
therefore at the core of the knowledge triangle of research, education and innovation.  
In the ERA Green Paper published in 2007 world class research infrastructures are put forward as one 
of the pillars of an ambitious ERA vision. However,  as the frontiers of research evolve and become 
more advanced and as our technologies progress, research infrastructures are becoming increasingly 
complex and more expensive , often placing them beyond the reach of a single research group, region, 
nation or even continent.  
Europe has taken a major step forward in the deve lopment of a more coordinated approach for policy-
making in the field of research infrastruct ures with the establishment of ESFRI, the European Strategy 
Forum for Research Infrastructures . The Informal Competitiveness Council of 1-3 July 2004 in 
Maastricht (NL) welcomed the Commission's proposal to develop a strategic roadmap for Europe in 
the field of Research Infrastructures for the next 10 to 20 years and at the Competitiveness Council of 
25-26 November 2004, the Research Ministers ask ed ESFRI to establish this roadmap in close 
collaboration with the European Commission.  
In October 2006, ESFRI released the first ever Eu ropean Roadmap for Research Infrastructures. The 
ESFRI roadmap  contains 35 key major projects of pan-Eu ropean interest. These cover a variety of 
fields ranging from Sciences & Humanities, to Envi ronmental Sciences, from Energy to Biomedical 
and Life Sciences, or Physics. Research infrast ructures are large-scale facilities, major pieces of 
research equipment, set of instruments, databases and networks that aid scientists in their work. 
Examples of such facilities in the Roadmap incl ude large-scale laser systems, deep sea floor 
observatories, bio-banks, the European Extremely Large Telescope, a network of clinical research 
centres and an upgrade of the European Social Survey.  
The sheer size of these projects (generally several hundreds of millions of Euros for construction and 
several tens of millions of Euros for operation) requires a joint effort by European Member States .  
In the context of the European strategy to im prove the framework conditions for research and 
innovation a modernised Community framework for State aid for research and innovation
6 and 
guidance for a more effective use of tax incentives for R&D7 were adopted in November 2006.  
At the Competitiveness Council of 21-22 May 20078, the Research Ministers noted that Europe's main 
global partners are strongly investing in modern large-scale research infrastructure and stressed the 
importance of starting the implementation  of projects such as those contained in the ESFRI roadmap. 
                                                 
6 OJ C2323, 30.12.2006 
7 COM (2006) 728 of 22.11.2006 
8 Presidency conclusions of the Comp etitiveness Council of 30 May 2007  
EN 6   EN Member States were invited to develop or stre ngthen their national roadmaps and strategies on 
research infrastructures and to develop long-term pl ans for the investments. In addition, the Council 
recommended them to coordinate their future activ ities, taking account of the orientation proposed by 
ESFRI, thereby generating economies of scale a nd enabling a more efficient development. 
The European Council, in its meeting of December 14, 20079, reiterated its invitation to Member 
States and urged them to participate more actively  to the implementation of European Research 
Infrastructures, in the context of the Lisbon objectiv es. The European Council, in its meeting of March 
13-14, 200810, recommended also the increase of scientific e-infrastructures and the strengthening of 
research infrastructures of pan-European interest . More specifically in the field of energy, the 
Council in its meeting of February 28, 200811 highlighted the need to improve and enlarge the 
Community's world class knowledge base in partic ular by asking ESFRI to identify the need for 
European Research Infrastructures, in line with the European Stra tegic Energy Technology Plan put 
forward by the Commission.  
However, a major difficulty for se tting up new European research infr astructures, apart from scarcity 
of resources and the complexity of technical and organisational issues is the lack of an adequate legal 
framework  allowing the creation of appropriate partners hip with partners from different countries. 
Recent work carried out under the auspices of the ESFRI has recognised the limitations of existing 
legal instruments and identified a need to develo p a new dedicated Community legal framework for 
setting-up European research infrastructures.  
It is in that context that the Commission has included in its 2008 Legislative and Work Programme, as 
a Priority Initiative, a proposal to develop a "R EGULATION on the Community legal framework for a 
European Research Infrastructure (ERI)".  
                                                 
9 Presidency conclusions of the European Council of 14 December 2007 
10 Presidency conclusions of the European Council of 13-14 March 
11 Energy Council conclusions referring to the SET plan of 28 February 2008 
EN 7   EN 2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES , EXPERT GROUPS AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
This proposal relates to Commission's work plan  item Ref: 2008/RTD/034. The main analysis for the 
impact assessment was conducted between March 2006 and April 2008. Given the broad range of 
potential impacts, an inter-service group was es tablished and held regul ar meetings between 
November 2007 and May 2008. This group was chaired by DG RTD and consisted of representatives 
from the following DGs and Services: DG INFSO, DG ADMIN, DG BUDG, DG ENV, DG MARKT, DG REGIO, DG TAXUD, DG TREN, the Joint Research Centre (JRC), Secretariat General and the Legal service. 
A wide-ranging consultation of interested parties has been carried out to prep are this initiative. The 
impact assessment has drawn information coming from a variety of sources:  
i) Analysis conducted by experts;  ii) Consultation of stakeholders and  iii) Contributions from an inter-service group a nd from an independent "sounding board" 
specifically set up to follow this initiative.  
2.1. The Impact Assessment Board 
A draft of this Impact Assessment was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board on 15 April 2008. 
In its favourable opinion dated 15 May 2008, the Boar d advised the Directorate-General for Research 
to elaborate more on the option Number 4 (see secti ons 5 and 6). DG Research therefore revised this 
report in line with Board's comments. 
2.2. Consultation of experts  
i) Opinion of the Member States (through ESFRI) 
ESFRI brings together high level national policy offi cials, and has played an important role in 
promoting the case for developing a new legal frame work for European research infrastructures. To 
tackle this issue and move it forward, ESFRI or ganised, in collaboration with DG Research, two 
workshops
12 with key stakeholders in 2006.  
The first  workshop, held on 23 March 2006 , brought together ESFRI representatives, officials of the 
European Commission, directors of European rese arch facilities and legal experts with in-depth 
knowledge of the subject. The main aims were to take  stock of the experience with legal instruments 
used in establishing European r esearch infrastructures, to identify examples of good practices, to 
elaborate upon the advantages and disadvantages of the existing legal forms and to define a set of 
criteria for the selection of the most suitabl e ones for new research infrastructures. A second 
workshop, on 14 December 2006, focused on the analysis  of the legal forms that exist at Community 
level.  
The two workshops showed the limitations of the existing legal forms at national, Community or 
international level for European research infrast ructures and identified the need to carry out a 
feasibility study for a new European legal instrument.  
                                                 
12 The reports of the workshops are available on the site http://cordis.europa. eu/esfri/policy.htm . They are 
also available in annex 5 and 6 of this report in pdf format. 
EN 8   EN ii) Opinion of an expert-group on the feasi bility of a European legal instrument  
A feasibility study on the creation of a Europ ean legal instrument for European research 
infrastructures was carried out during the first part of 2007. Legal specialists13 were in charge of this 
study. The group concluded that a solution could be an EC Regulation based on Article 171 of the EC 
Treaty, providing a general common legal frame for research infrastructures of European interest. These conclusions were presented at the 4
th European Conference on Research Infrastructures, in 
Hamburg, in June 2007 (see below). In their view , this regulation should only provide a framework, 
leaving sufficient amount of flexibility to the individu al consortia to set up the adequate rules for the 
specific infrastructure. 
iii) Opinions of the ERA expert group 
As a means to further stimulate the debate on ERA issues, an expert group on research infrastructures 
was established14. The interim conclusions of this group we re presented at the high-level Conference 
on 'The Future of Science and Technology in Eu rope' in Lisbon, Portugal, 8 to 10 October 200715. In 
its final report16, the group highlights that achieving the next generation of European infrastructures 
requires new legal and governance structures that can be more readily available. Experts also indicate 
that purely national legal bases as well as internationa l agreements have proven either inadequate or 
too complex to comply with the needs of the research community. The group recommended 
developing an EU legal framework for Research Infrastructures based on Art. 171 EC Treaty. 
2.3. Consultation of stakeholders  
iv) Conclusions of the 2007 Conference on Research Infrastructures 
The European Conference on Research Infrastru ctures, ECRI 2007, organised under the German 
Presidency, was an opportunity for more than 400 r esearch stakeholders to debate the key challenges 
in this area. Participants included representatives  from parliaments, ministries, funding agencies, 
industry, the European Commission as well as scien ce administrators and decision makers of large 
infrastructure facilities. The conclusions of the conference underlined the importance of research 
infrastructures for capacity building, training of researchers and generation and transfer of new 
knowledge, and the active role of the European Commi ssion in the field of research infrastructures. A 
special session was dedicated to legal aspects, wh ere ideas for a new legal instrument for the 
development of European facilities were presented and discussed. For the implementation of the 35 
projects on the ESFRI Roadmap, the conference concluded that an important factor would be the 
creation of a dedicated legal structure at European level.17 
v) ERA stakeholders' consultation (2007) Following the Green Paper on "The European R esearch Area: New Perspectives", the European 
Commission launched a broad institu tional and public debate on what  needs to be done to give 
renewed impetus to the achievement of ERA. The de velopment of research infrastructures was one of 
                                                 
13 Members of the expert group were: FISCHER-DIESKAU  Christian (EC Honorary Director), TUTT Ann 
(CCLRC), JAHREISS Hans (Head of Administra tion ESO), GARCIA-GALLARDO Ramon (SJ Berwin 
LLP), MARIEN-DUSAK Ingrid (EC – DG INFSO), BAS-SANCHEZ Mila (EC – DG RTD) 
14 The Expert Group was composed of: KROO Norbert (Cha ir), LAETHEM Bart (Rapporteur), CELIS Julio, 
ELIAS Peter, JAHREISS Hans, LAAKSONEN Leif, LEON Gonzalo, READ Malcom. 
15 See Interim Policy Options Paper of the ERA Expert Group "Research Infrastructures" , 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/conference s/2007/fst/pdf/dis cussionpaper_en.pdf  
16 Developing World-Class Research Infrastructure s for the European Research Area, EUR 23320 EN 
2008. Available also in annex 8 of this report. 
17 ECRI 2007Conference, Hamburg, 5-6 June 2007:  
https://www.ecri2007.de/documentation/conclusions   
EN 9   EN the key issues. Stakeholders were invited to cont ribute to the debate by responding via an on-line 
questionnaire, though other forms of response were also encouraged18.  
A total of 685 responses to the online questionnaire we re recorded, with 31% (211 responses) replying 
on behalf of an organisation and 69% (474 responses) in an individual capacity. While the majority of 
survey respondents were resident in Europe (the largest groups being resident in France (96), Italy 
(93), the UK (80) and Germany (70)), replies were received from third countries, including the USA (14), Australia (3), Canada (2) and China (1). 
Most respondents to the online questionnaire (82%) agreed that a common a pproach was needed to 
develop the European research infrastructures id entified by ESFRI (6% disagree and 12% had no 
opinion). On those respondent agreeing 81% also agr eed that leadership for such a common approach 
should be taken by the European Union. In respon se to the question ‘What action is required at the 
European level to facilitate the creation and ope ration of these new infrastructures identified by 
ESFRI?’, there was a clear measure of agreement (5 8%) that a new European legal framework should 
be developed to support the creati on and operation of new forms of research infrastructures, and that 
guidelines should also be established to facilitate such activity (72%). The respondents supporting a 
new legal framework stressed the need for flex ibility given the diverse nature of research 
infrastructures.  
As far as the views of the Europe's inter-govern mental research organisations (EIROforum) are 
concerned, they believe that inter-governmental agre ements still have a useful role to play. They 
indicate that establishing new agreements is often per ceived to be cumbersome, but they claim that the 
long-term operational stability that is embodied in  such agreements far outweigh the short-term 
additional efforts needed to initiate them. 
European Research Performing Organizations (RPOs)
19 expressed the view that "a European 
framework to facilitate the emergence and operation of new forms of research infrastructures of pan-
European interest was needed " and that "tax ( VAT) and mobility of personnel problems have to be 
solved in flexible schemes that k eep the acquisitions of existing pan- European institutions (e.g. ESRF, 
CERN, ESA, ESO) while avoiding the high-leve l agreements needed to implement them 
(intergovernmental treaties etc)". 
vi) Meeting with currently involved stakeholders (2008) A Stakeholder Meeting was organised on 3 March 2008 to explain to potential stakeholders the 
content a regulation based on article 171 EC Treaty,  to ensure that it responds well to the expressed 
needs. Participants included representatives of th e projects in the ESFRI roadmap, representatives of 
European research facilities and legal experts with in-depth knowledge of the subject.  
A vast majority of experts agreed on the usefulness of a new legal form at Community level and on the 
broad orientation of the project of the Commission
20. They expressed the wish for the legal form to 
bring some advantages e.g. provisions in the new legal framework would be necessary in the fields of 
taxation, public procurement rul es and some staff rule. Experts from new Member States expressed the 
view that a new legal frame at Community level w ould be most useful for new Member states, which 
have no experience and may have no appropriate national legal form available. Although many staff 
and resources issues would not be solved by the ERI there was broad agreement that the new legal 
                                                 
18 The on-line public consultation lasted from 1st May 2007 until 31st August 2007. The consultation has 
given rise to over 800 written submissions, opinions and recommendations. Their analysis can be found 
on http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/progress- on-debate/stakeholde r-consultation_en.html . 
19 Free form contribution received from the "Centre Na tional de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)" of 
France, the "Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cie ntificas (CSIC)" of Spain and the "Max Planck 
Society (MPS)" of Germany. 
20 See summary conclusions under http://cordis.europa. eu/esfri/po licy.htm   
EN 10   EN form would help to attract international staff a nd associated resources where they are going to be 
needed. Other staff related issues such as pay scales and pensions were consid ered too difficult to be 
dealt with in the Regulation.  
There was a broad agreement on the projected legal base for the ERI (Art. 171 of the EC treaty) and 
on the need for an empowerment of the Council to the Commission to simply and speed up the 
process. 
2.4. Sounding Board and Inter-Services Group  
vii) Sounding board 
A 'sounding board'  was also set up, at the beginning of 2008, to support the Commission in its 
activities in the context of the work of the inter-service group21. This group, composed of five experts 
with in-depth experience in th e field of research infrastructur es, advised the Commission on the 
general objectives of the intended framework regula tion and its content, on the preparation of a 
stakeholder workshop and on the Impact Assessment.  
The sounding board was pleased with the work carried out for the impact assessment. It showed strong 
support to the option to develop a new Community legal instrument for European research 
infrastructures. In their view, such a legal instrume nt, complementing other existing legal forms, could 
facilitate and speed up the decision making process for new infrastructures. In order to be useful the 
new legal instrument should allow arrangements that are common in international organisations for 
procurements, exemptions of taxa tion, derogations from national laws  and limitation of liability. The 
monitoring by the Commission should not generate any extra administrative burden for the 
infrastructure's management.  
viii) Conclusions of the inter-service group  The inter-service group held six official meeti ngs between November 2007 and May 2008. Several 
additional bi-lateral meetings were also organi sed between DG RTD and the other Directorates 
General and services involved to progress with the work. The Interservice Group concluded that, while 
the existing legal forms under which trans-national r esearch infrastructures can be set up remain valid 
and useful, a new legal framework as suggested in  the forecasted initiative would bring advantages 
and Community Added Value. 
3. P
ROBLEM DEFINITION  
3.1. Context 
As mentioned in the ERA Green Paper in 2007, "a  sense of urgency in revisiting ERA stems from the 
fact that globalisation of research and technology is accelerating and new scientific and technological 
powers – China, India and other emerging econom ies – are attracting considerable and increasing 
amounts of R&D investments. These developments br ing new opportunities for Europe and the world. 
At the same time, they raise the question of Eu rope’s ability to sustain a competitive edge in 
knowledge and innovation, which is at the core of the renewed Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs. 
Addressing this question will be a major issue for the next three-year cycle of the Strategy, to be 
initiated in 2008". In addition our society faces many  challenges, global or specific, in many areas. 
These include climate change, energy production,  water supplies, the need for a sustainable 
environment, improvement in the quality of life, the threat of terrorism. 
                                                 
21 The Sounding Board was composed of: VIERKORN-RUDOLPH Beatrix (BMBF, Chair), BAINES Linda 
(CCLRC), FIONI Gabriele (CEA), MARN Jure (Univ. Maribor), GARCIA GALLARDO Ramon 
(independent expert), RODRIGUEZ Manuel (repr esentative of ESRF), METZGER Maximilian 
(representative of CERN). 
EN 11   EN The Commission's recent Communication on the renewed Lisbon strategy22 stresses that "Europe must 
also pool its resources for a new generation of la rge-scale facilities for fu ture laboratories and 
instruments which are indispensable for staying at  the forefront of frontier research over the next 
decades".  
3.2. Critical role of research infrastructures for R&D in Europe 
The existence of and access to lead ing research infrastructures is a major determinant in Europe’s 
ability to sustain a competitive edge in knowledge cr eation and innovation. As identified in particular 
by ESFRI, high quality research infrastructures are of paramount importance because of the following 
factors: 
• Research infrastructures are essential for ensuring th e scientific advances that can help Europe to 
find solutions to many of the above-mentioned ch allenges (global warming, energy production, 
water supplies, a sustainable environment, health, etc).  
• Research infrastructures provide essential tools to carry out cutting-edge research and a large part 
of excellent research is performed in and around su ch facilities. They serve as magnets for talented 
researchers and thus encourage the important interaction of researchers coming from different countries or disciplines. 
• Research infrastructures play a key role in build ing the interface between science and industry. The 
landscape of Europe shows that, where research in frastructures have their site, often “technology 
clusters” or so-called technology parks can be  found. The construction and operation of such 
facilities also create important supply and demand effects for new and high-tech equipment, being 
then the seed for spin-off products  and/or start up companies. 
• Research Infrastructures serve large scientific communities and many thousands of researchers and 
students from universities, research institutes or industry, from Europe and outside Europe, use 
them each year. Research Infrastructures should th erefore contribute substantially to attracting the 
600,000 or more young scientists that Europe needs to reach 3% of GDP investment in research. 
• Research infrastructures stimulat e the interest of young people to embrace scientific careers and 
train highly skilled people.  
3.3. New challenges in the field of research infrastructures in Europe  
However, there are a number of im portant trends which pose challenges for Europe when it comes to 
creating the new research infrastructures it needs in the coming years:  
• As the frontiers of research evolve and become more advanced and as our technologies progress, 
the demands for new, upgraded and more elab orate research infrastructures are becoming 
increasingly complex and expensive . Scientific fields such as lif e sciences are also undergoing a 
profound transformation , fuelled by advances in high-throug hput analytical techniques such as 
genomics and proteomics. In fields such as astronomy (for example research into the nature of dark 
energy or the evolution of galaxies) there is a need for ever more complicated and expensive 
research instruments and research services.  
• At the same time, there is a trend towards the se tting-up of more and more multidisciplinary and/or 
distributed facilities, to look at complex and interacting systems  (e.g. environment, energy or 
human behaviour), a development which is associated with the increasing capabilities of 
communication, data treatment and storage. 
                                                 
22 Strategic report on the renewed Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs, Communication from the 
Commission to the European Counc il, COM(2007) 803 final, 11.12.07 
EN 12   EN 3.4. Nature of the issue and problem that require action 
These new trends mean that the costs of many envisaged new facilities cannot be met by individual 
Member States, and that they can only be construc ted if several partners from different countries pool 
their resources. In other words, it is now necessary to  create a series of key research infrastructures on 
a European scale, involving partnerships between in terested Member States. This is the rationale for 
ESFRI's European Roadmap for Research  Infrastructures (see annex 4). 
However, the close international c ooperation required to do this raises  a number of serious problems. 
Organisations from different countries often find it di fficult to cooperate, enter into partnerships and 
pool resources. Indeed, the setting-up of internati onal consortia typically involves long and complex 
negotiations on e.g. governance, sh are taken over by each partner, "return" of investment, tax, 
procurement or liability issues. 
For a given infrastructure, partners from different countries must find and develop an appropriate legal 
base in order to resolve these issues. However, whil e there are currently a number of different legal 
forms available under national, Community or interna tional laws, recent work has shown that in most 
cases they are unsuitable for meeting the needs of ne w European research infrastructures. In particular 
the creation of international organisations requires long procedures due to the high number of formal 
steps. Moreover the staffs in su ch entities enjoy salaries and priv ileges which are not considered 
justified in most cases. Community legal forms such as EEIG, EGTC or ECS (see section 5.1.ii) are not fully appropriate, either because their objectives ar e out of the scope of Research Infrastructures or 
because they exhibit specific limitations (impossibility  of participation of non EU countries, unlimited 
liability of members or upper limit for the number of  employees). Although national forms were used 
in a few cases, they remain speci fic to each country and this feature remains a serious obstacle to the 
participation of other countries, not to mention that  many countries do not have any adapted legal form 
in their national law. In addition, for all legal forms mentioned above, the exemptions on taxation 
which are generally required by members require  specific and cumbersome negotiations with the 
national and local authorities
23.  
These factors were clearly identified by potential stakeholders of the 35 major European 
infrastructures on the ESFRI Roadmap. The stake holders also urged ESFRI and the EC to find a 
solution avoiding lengthy and comp lex legal negotiations, which will inevitably delay the setting up of 
these important facilities. What is required, if Europe is to be able to launch rapidly and efficiently the 
new infrastructures it needs, is to identify a legal framework  adapted to the specific problems of cross-
border cooperation and financing24. The stakes are high and stakeholders agree that there is no time to 
lose in finding a solution25. If this is not possible this means that the scientific and technological 
advances resulting from the operation of these infrastru ctures will be significantly delayed, and that 
Europe will thus progress more slowly towards its Lisbon and ERA objectives. In particular, progress 
towards the knowledge economy will be slower, as w ill the potential benefits to citizens and society 
                                                 
23 For example, in the case of FA IR and X-FEL, the discussion between the potential partners started in 
2004 and are not yet finalised. In addition to the negotiations on t he amounts and nature of 
contributions, which are the key issue, it is clear that  taxation issues had to be clarified before the partner 
states could put forward any contributions. For lack of  better alternatives, it was decided that the new 
facilities should be built and run by a German limited  liability company (GmbH). Representatives from the 
partner countries spent a lot of ti me to understand how they could work within such an organisation and 
make their influence weigh. This part of the negotia tions could have been significantly speeded up if all 
partners had been able to start on an equal footing wi th a Community legal form that would have helped 
to solve taxation issue. 
24 In a recent article in NATURE (Vol 447/24 Ma y 2007) we can read "There is no perfect model for 
international research infrastructure, but interg overnmental organizations have historically been 
successful because they are legal entities with customized governance that allows independent 
operation but continuous external performance evalua tion. However, such organizations take years to 
establish. Simultaneously setting up multiple entities with differing combinations of member states for 
various ESFRI projects seems to us impossibly di fficult. Achieving the next generation of European 
infrastructures will therefore require new legal an d governance structures that can be more readily 
adapted to support successful ESFRI projects". 
25 Lisbon Presidency conference, October 2007 
EN 13   EN from the scientific advances these infrastructures will produce in relation to the environment, energy, 
health and so on. 
3.5. Which groups or regions will be affected? 
This new initiative will affect a wide range of players.  Firstly, researchers will be affected by the more 
rapid creation of infrastructures in a number of discip lines. Not only will this affect the many scientists 
who will work at these facilities and be able to con duct cutting-edge research, but it will also have an 
impact on thousands of scientists from universities, research institutes and industry, both from Europe 
and outside Europe, who will be able to access these new facilities. 
As mentioned above, the rapid construction and oper ation of such facilities will also have further 
impacts on industry, in terms of accelerating importa nt supply and demand effects for new and high-
tech equipment, sometimes lead ing to spin-off products or start up companies. Building these 
infrastructures more quickly can also accelerate the benefits of an enhanced interface between the 
scientific and industrial research communities, fo r example through stimulating the formation of 
“technology clusters” or technology parks.  
Within the European Union (EU), the new Member States are also in  a position to benefit from this 
new initiative. A survey on ex isting research infrastructures26 carried out in 2006 showed that, at the 
beginning of the 21st century, such infrastructures were predom inantly built in EU-15 rather than in 
EU-12 and that the gap between the EU-12 and EU -15 Member States in regard of research 
infrastructures was continuing to increase. Thus a le gal form at Community level would be especially 
useful in new Member States and in Member Stat es where no large research infrastructures exist.  
3.6. Treaty base and subsidiarity principle 
The right for the Community to act in this field is set out in several articles of the Treaty which make 
provisions for research coordination and cooperation.  
Article 165 stipulates that " the Community and the Member States shall coordinate their research and 
technological development activities so as to ensure that national policies and Community policy are 
mutually consistent ". It also allows the Commission, in cl ose cooperation with the Member States, to 
"take any useful initiative " to promote such coordination.  
In addition, Article 171 stipulates that "the Community may set up joint undertakings or any other 
structure necessary for the efficient execution of Community research, technological development and 
demonstration programmes "27. 
In order for Community action to be justified, it is also necessary for the subsidiarity principle to be 
respected. This involves assessing two aspects. Firstly, it is important to be sure that the objectives of 
the proposed action could not be achieved sufficiently by Member States in the framework of their national constitutional system (necessity test). Thre e options are proposed to tackle the identified 
problem: (1) Coordination action at European leve l for the development of best practices; (2) 
Development of Joint Undertakings and (3) De velopment of a dedicated legal framework at 
Community level. The Community is best placed to  implement these options, on the basis of Article 
165 for the first one, and through Article 171 for the two others. 
The second aspect to consider is whether and how the objectives could be better achieved by action on 
the part of the Community (test of European valu e-added). The rationale for a European action stems 
from the trans-national nature of the problem (s etting-up of legal frameworks between Member 
States). Alternative solutions exist through the se tting up of inter-governmental agreements, however – 
as already mentioned - the administrative and le gal processes which typically have to be followed 
under such intergovernmental schemes are some times considered as too lengthy, difficult and 
cumbersome. 
                                                 
26 Reference to the Survey realised in 2006– h ttp://www.ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures 
27 Treaty establishing the European Community; s ee Official Journal C 325 of 24 December 2002. 
EN 14   EN 4. OBJECTIVES  
4.1. Policy objective 
i) General objectives  The overall objective of this proposal is to he lp Europe address the various opportunities and 
challenges it is confronted with through the tim ely development of efficient European research 
infrastructures (ERI) which would in turn: 
• Help strengthen the development of an efficient European Research Area by better integrating and 
leveraging national efforts, avoiding sub-critical f acilities, building a European identity and placing 
Europe as a world leader for high-level research services, therefore supporting many of the Lisbon 
objectives;  
• Help Europe to "pool its resources for a ne w generation of large-scale facilities which are 
indispensable for staying at the forefront of research over the next decades"
28 ; providing 
researchers with the rese arch facilities they need, increasing th erefore European attractiveness and 
potential for capacity building and reinforcing the image of Europe as a place to conduct leading edge and cost-efficient basic research;  
• Help to better tackle social and environmen tal challenges such as climate change, energy 
production, water supplies, quality of  the environment, quality of life and societal issues, through 
excellent research services provided by such ne w European Research Infrastructures, including e-
infrastructures; 
• Contribute to long-term economic competitiveness, through the acceleration of scientific advances 
in Europe favoured by such new Europe an facilities and knowledge-based growth. 
ii) Specific objectives  It should be remembered that providing world class research infrastructures (ERI) will create unique 
opportunities to carry out cutting-edge research; to a ttract the best researcher s from across the world; 
to train highly qualified students and engineers; and to boost technology transfer and innovation
29. 
Achieving these objectives can be assisted by the development of a favourable legal environment  by 
the efficient use of specific articles of the Treat y, namely articles 165 and 171 (and article 172 for its 
implementation) stimulating in turn an easy-to-use process and the timely launch of a new generation 
of European research infrastructures (ERI).  
It is important: 
• To stimulate the setting-up of any structure nece ssary for the efficient execution of research, 
technological development and dem onstration Community programmes; 
• To simplify the complex process of developing ne w European research infrastructures, accelerate 
their construction and avoid uncoordinated activities. 
To ensure that national policies and Community po licy are mutually consistent: the Commission may 
take any useful initiative to promote such coordination. 
                                                 
28 Recommendation of the Strategi c report on the renewed Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs, 
Communication from the Commissi on to the European Council, COM(2007) 803 final, 11.12.07 
29 ESFRI roadmap report; ISBN 92-79-02694-1, 2006 
EN 15   EN iii) Operational objectives 
The implementation of new European research in frastructures (such as those identified by ESFRI) 
requires Europe wide partnerships and their timely establishment. In addition the development of basic 
research in Europe needs the development of mo re favourable conditions. The operational objectives 
of this proposal are in this context: 
• To ease and speed up the process of setting-up and op erating new European research infrastructures 
(ERI), in particular through a cost-efficient decision-making procedure; 
• Based on the ESFRI roadmap identifying 35 potent ial new projects, to increase the number of 
European research infrastructures,  in shaping a legal instrument that might correspond better to 
their needs; 
• To help develop further the European policy for research Infrastructures, complementing the 
advancements already achieved since 2004,  in particular through ESFRI.  
4.2. Consistency with horizontal objectives of the European Union 
The rapid setting-up of new European research in frastructures – as identified for example by ESFRI - 
would enable an easier and quicker achievement of the horizontal objectives of the European Union: 
Growth and Jobs : The construction, operation and mainte nance of such facilities create indeed 
important supply and demand effects. For example, the generation of today's CCD cameras (consumer 
products), or the use of specific software for ophtha lmological examinations have their roots in the 
technological developments done in the last twenty years in the large optical astronomy observatories;  
"Sustainable Europe" : European research infrastructures help  to better understa nd our environment 
or to develop new Energy approaches. As identif ied by the Energy Council of 28 February 2008, 
research infrastructures help to improve and enla rge the Community's world-class knowledge base of 
researchers and research institutes, including by re ducing barriers to mobility, attracting world-class 
human capital, improving science education, in the field of renewable energy technologies (SET plan);  
"Knowledge Society" : European research infrastructures are ke y for the efficient access to world-level 
scientific knowledge by large commun ities of researchers and users. It  should be remembered that the 
Internet was born in CERN many years ago. Toda y millions of kilometres of fibre optics link the 
different scientific centres of competences, resear ch centres and universities, as the backbone of an 
efficient, quick and reliable scientific communication and information system. 
Europe as a world partner : The rapid development of European research infrastructures will largely 
impact the attractiveness of the European Research Area. Already Australia, India, Russia and the 
USA have shown considerable interest in a partic ipation in the development of the ESFRI projects. 
Better regulation (and simplification) : Finally, through an optimisation of the legal framework at 
European level, the Council could allow a quicker  and efficient process for the management of the 
different files related with the se tting-up of new European research facilities using a single legal base 
instead of several national ones.  
5. POLICY OPTIONS  
Four policy options have been considered in relation with  these objectives. These policy options are 
presented below in an order of increasing importance of the intervention:  
EN 16   EN • Option 1: The "no specific action at European leve l" option corresponds to the present situation, 
where, each consortium, through an  ad hoc process, tries to identify among existing legal forms the 
one which could be the most appropriate for their project;  
• Option 2 corresponds to a "light" form of inte rvention from the European Commission, helping 
those involved in building European infrastructures  to identify problems and needs, to exchange 
information about how to tackle these problems and to establish best practices.  
• Option 3 corresponds to the setting-up of Joint Undertakings by the Community, according to 
Article 171 of the EC-Treaty, on case by case basi s, every time that a need for such setting-up 
occurs;  
• Option 4 is a more direct response to the problem  at hand. It proposes a Community's legislative 
action to provide a new legal instrument adapted to  the need of European research infrastructures 
complementing existing forms at national and Euro pean level; it also considers the empowerment 
from the legislator to the European Commi ssion for conferring the "European Research 
Infrastructure" status.  
5.1. Option 1: No specific action at European level 
Under this option, stakeholders in new European  research infrastructures projects have to find by 
themselves the legal instrument that would best co rrespond to their needs. The "no EU action" is a 
standard scenario that must be taken into account in the evaluation of impacts. It provides a 
benchmark against which to  measure other options. 
Existing research infrastructures are operating under a variety of legal forms or legal frameworks. 
These have been examined as regards their suitability  for research infrastructures during the last two 
years (see section 2) and are briefly described below. They are regrouped into the three following 
categories according to their legal base: interna tional law, Community law or national law.  
i) Legal framework available under international law 
Intergovernmental agreements  
Organisations established through in tergovernmental agreements and ha ve a legal personality which is 
governed by international law. For example, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research 
(CERN) was founded in 1954 as the first European rese arch organization based on an inter-
governmental agreement and was a model for other scientific organizations such as the European 
Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) and the Euro pean Organisation for Astronomical Research in 
the Southern Hemisphere (ESO). A more recent example is the International Thermonuclear Energy 
Reactor  (ITER)30. A list of existing Intergovernmental resear ch infrastructures is given in annex 3. 
These agreements are concluded by intergovern mental conventions between states and other 
international subjects. Usually they are made of a number of standard provisions. These encompass the 
legal personality, the establishment of the organisa tion and its purpose, the members and organs, an 
accession clause and the settlement of disputes.  
These organisations operate under their own rules and by laws regulating a wide range of issues such 
as staff rules, financial rules and procurement pr ocedures. The financial contributions of Member 
States are either fixed by negotiations ( ITER ) or calculated according to the net national income of 
each country ( CERN ). Prior to the agreement, there are of ten long discussions between the partners 
about the funding of resources, the site and all ot her necessary elements to commission and to operate 
the facility. 
                                                 
30 The Joint Implementation Agreement was signed on  21st November 2006 (Annex to Council of the 
European Union 212731/06 of 21.9.2006) 
EN 17   EN This legal form typically allows significant a dvantages such as tax exemptions (VAT and salary 
taxes)31. Regarding staff policy, the specific status of  personnel (international civil servant or United 
Nation types), with privileges and immunities, ma kes it possible to attract very highly skilled 
collaborators. The 50 years experience of CERN , and the more recent experience of ITER , makes it 
feasible to emphasise the well established long-term a dvantages, constraints and/or parameters, which 
can be drawn from an intergovernme ntal agreement or convention.  
ii) Legal frameworks available under Community law 
European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC)  
This is a new cooperation instrument at Community level, based on Article 159 of the Treaty, for the 
creation of cooperation groupings in the Community territory. The objective of an EGTC is to 
facilitate and promote cross-border, trans-nati onal and/or interregional cooperation between its 
members, primarily regional and local or other publ ic bodies, but covering national authorities as well, 
with the aim of strengthening economic and social cohesion32. This may include using it for research 
purposes, as research is recognised as a tool for fost ering regional development. EGTCs can be set up 
by national research authorities only and may therefore, in some cases,  be used for the purpose of 
European research infrastructures. 
European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG)  
The EEIG is explicitly designated as a means to “cooperate effectively across frontiers”33. Its purpose 
is to facilitate or develop economic  activities of its members. The activity of the EEIG must be related 
to the economic activities of its members and may not replace them. It can be formed by at least two 
natural persons or companies as well as other legal bodies governed by public or private law 
(including chambers of commerce, research centres, universities, local authorities) from at least two different Member States of the European Econom ic Area (EEA). The EEIG has legal capacity and 
may represent its members towards third parties. The members of the grouping have unlimited joint 
liability for its debts of all kind.  
The European Cooperative Society (ECS)
 
Its purpose is to complete the EU internal market  and to provide a legal framework for cooperatives on 
a Community scale34. It is considered that the operating pr inciples of cooperatives are “different from 
those of other economic agents” in the sense that th ey require a democratic structure and distribution 
of net profits on an equitable basis, with a very  strong employees' participation. As with all 
cooperatives under domestic law, its main feature is  the supply of goods and services. Consequently, 
its focus is the participation in economic activities,  which rules out the suitability for scientific large 
scale facilities.  
European Company (also known as  Societas Europaea  SE) 
This legal framework derives from C ouncil Regulation (EC) No. 2157/2001 of 8 
October 2001 and 
Council Directive 2001/86/EC as regards the involve ment of employees. Following a long discussion 
on how to enable public limited companies (i.e. pl c) to carry on their business on a Community scale, 
this regulation aims at facilitating the creation and management of companies with a “European 
dimension”. 
                                                 
31 "Very Large Scientific Facilities in Europe: Analys is of Institutional Co-o peration", OCDE/GD(95)80. 
32 The (Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006) is the first EU  instrument offering a legal framework to set up a 
legal body under Community law for territorial cooperation. 
33 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of 25 July 19 85 on the European Economic Interest Grouping.  
34 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1435/2003 of 22nd July 2003. 
EN 18   EN A European Company can only be created if existing companies in more than two EU Member States 
(MS) are concerned. It is exclusively foreseen in 4 cases: i) by the merger of two or more existing 
public limited companies from at least two different EU Member States; ii) by the formation of a 
holding company promoted by public or private limited liability companies from at least two different 
MS; iii) by the formation of a subsidiary of companies from at least two different MS and iv) by the transformation of a public limited company which has,  for at least two years, had a subsidiary in 
another MS. The European Company addresses primarily  the needs of large co mpanies, whose capital 
is divided into shares
. They may  operate under a European form, on the basis of the rules of the SE 
Regulation and SE Directive as implemented by the MS.  
iii) Legal frameworks under national law 
Companies  
Companies  are often used to set up research infrastructur es in Europe because they are well adapted to 
public-private needs and are better integrated in to the legal framework of the country where the 
research infrastructures are located (e.g. French Société civile , UK Limited liability Company  (Ltd), 
German Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung  (GmbH)). There are many different legal types, most 
of which are limited liability companies. The shareholde rs have a limited liability  in proportion to their 
contribution to the capital. One distinguishes non-pr ofit making companies in which members wish to 
develop a specific activity from commercial and pr ofit-making ventures in which the shareholders 
invest a capital essentially for their financial in terest. Generally, companies can be set up with 
partners, public or private, coming from the hos t country and/or from any other state.  
Foundations  
This legal form is typical for non-profit organisati on, governed by national law. In The Netherlands, 
this legal form is commonly used for research or ganisations. It emphasises the non-profit character of 
the research work and allows for a flexible governance structure with a board consisting of 
representatives from the stakeholders/financing parti es and a management, reporting to the board, but 
having full authority for the daily management of the organisation.  
AISBL  (international non-profit organi sation under the Belgian Law) 
This legal form is typical for non-profit organisa tion, governed by the Belgian national law, but 
allowing international partners and activities. It allo ws for a flexible governance structure with a board 
consisting of representatives from the stakeholders/f inancing parties and a management, reporting to 
the board, but having full authority for the daily management of the organisation.  
5.2. Option 2: Coordination action at EU le vel for the development of best practices 
Option 2 corresponds to a "light" intervention from th e EC and is a "soft" option between option 1 (no 
EU action) and option 4 (new legal framework).  It could be implemented by the European 
Commission by bringing together those people who are currently experiencing the problems in setting up European infrastructures and establishing codes of  good practice so that each new partnership does 
not have to re-invent the wheel.  
The Commission, in particular, could ensure that th e results of the work carried out on legal issues 
within the EC funded " Preparatory phase for the projects in the ESFRI Roadmap " are disseminated as 
widely as possible.  
EN 19   EN The purpose of the "preparatory phase" instrument, based on a variable geometry approach, is to 
provide catalytic and leveraging support to the ESFRI projects35 helping them to reach the level of 
maturity required to enable their construction. The EC contracts provide a framework to facilitate 
decision-making between the partners and to address ma ny critical issues that need to be resolved to 
make the project move forward. EC funding is providi ng support, in particular, to clarify the specific 
needs of each project and to identify the most appropriate legal and fina ncial basis for the new 
infrastructures.  
In addition, the support to possible ERA-NETs proj ects could be an efficient way to help Member 
States coordinating their Research Infrastructures-oriented actions. 
The dissemination of the information coming out of these projects should be of great benefit to 
stakeholders. This information could be further compiled into practical guidelines comprising a 
compendium of possible legal forms identifying thei r main strengths and weaknesses. In the future, 
this should avoid each consortium having to repeat th e same assessment work and to converge more 
quickly to the best legal form. 
5.3. Option 3: Development of Joint Undertakings 
Under this option the Community would develop Joint Undertakings for the new European research 
infrastructures projects. The decision to set up a jo int undertaking, based on Article 171 of the EC-
Treaty36, is made by the Council based on a proposal from the European Commission. The statutes or 
the articles of association of a joint undertaking ar e not fixed anywhere and therefore it is a legal 
instrument which theoretically leaves a lot of freedom to the founding members. 
This possibility has been  used recently, for the GALILEO satellite navigation system and for the FP7 
Joint Technology Initiatives "Clean Sky" , "ENIAC", "IMI" and "Artemis". The GALILEO experience 
shows that the joint undertaking is an adequate structure for a large scale project. It ensures the 
coherent management of all funds allocated to th e project. The governance structure is robust with a 
clear line of authority and responsibility covering scientific, technical, administrative and commercial 
aspects of the facility. Decisions taken by the Admi nistrative Board are implemented by the Executive 
Committee, assisted by the Advisory Committee under the guidance of the joint undertaking Director.  
However, the setting up of Joint Undertakings requi res a very strong Community involvement. In all 
the above examples this ended up with the Communi ty becoming a member of the joint undertaking 
and the main financial contributor. The structur es thus created have all the characteristics of 
"Community bodies" with the corresponding characteristics and constraints i.e. application of the Staff 
Regulation for the labour and social security law, of  the Protocol on Immunities and of the Financial 
Regulation of the European Communities. 
Considering the present situation in Europe where Memb er States wish to continue to play a central 
role in the development and financing of research  infrastructures, the limited funding available for 
research infrastructures at Community level an d the possible subsequent administrative and 
managerial difficulties, it is clear that the devel opment of Joint Undertakings for the new European 
research infrastructures could be only cons idered in exceptional circumstances. 
                                                 
35 Thirty four ESFRI projects are now supported for t he "preparatory phase" following the first FP7 call for 
proposals (Call: Infrastructures-2007-1: "Research in frastructures" part of the Capacities Programme).  
36 Article 171 - The Community may set up joint undertakings or any other structure necessary for the 
efficient execution of Community research, techno logical development and demonstration programmes. 
Article 172 - The Council, acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after 
consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, shall adopt the provisions 
referred to in Article 171. 
EN 20   EN 5.4. Option 4: Development of a dedicate d legal framework at Community level 
The legal basis is Article 171 of the EC-Treaty37 which gives power to the Community to set up joint 
undertakings or any other structure necessary  for the execution of Community research. This 
interpretation of statutory powers in the Treaty is corroborated by Article 163 paragraph 2 of the EC 
Treaty which empowers the Community to remove any legal and fiscal obstacles for research institutions to enable co llaboration beyond borders.  
Article 171 EC Treaty requires that each European Research Infrastructure (ERI) is set up by the 
legislator. This means that each ERI would have to be adopted every time by the Council in the 
consultation procedure upon proposal by the Comm ission. The proposed Regulation, however, would 
provide an empowerment to the Commission, subject to a Comitology procedure, and therefore would 
provide a quicker process, as well as "batch per batc h" approvals instead of individual decisions. In 
addition to providing the main characteristics of the legal form for ERIs, the foreseen Regulation 
would set out the rules and procedures concerning their establishment: 
– The founding members should take the initiative and draw up the Statutes and further 
accompanying documents required and submit the application to the Commission.  
– It will be then up to the Commission to examin e the file and adopt a decision to create the 
"European Research Infrastructure (ERI)". 
– The decision establishing the ERI would come into e ffect after publication in the Official Journal 
of the European Union. The Statutes would be annexed to the Decision. An amendment to the key 
elements of the Statutes would have to be adopted similarly. 
This option is based on the extensive work carried with ESFRI, legal specialists, stakeholders, the 
sounding board and the inter-service group, which led to the identification of a gap currently existing 
at European level since there is no provision for a legal form dedicated to European Research 
Infrastructures. In addition, the following features th at a new legal form ideally should have were 
identified: 
– it must provide a legal personality which is recognised in all Member States; 
– it must reflect the spirit of a truly European venture, although allowi ng participation of non-
European countries;  
– it should be flexible enough to adapt to the requ irements of the different ERIs, easy to use and 
speeding up the process of setting up the infrastructures; 
– it should provide some of those privileges and exem ptions which are allowed at a national level to 
international research organisations. 
The flexibility  needed to adapt to the require ments of specific infrastructure
38 would be provided by 
the specific statutes to be adopted  by the members of each infrastru cture, in complement to the 
common legal framework defined by the Regulation.  
Some key characteristics of an ERI to be defined by the framework Regulation are: 
i) Membership:  
                                                 
37 The use of Article 308 EC Treaty could have been us ed, but only in the absenc e of any other possibility 
allowing attaining one of the “objectives of the Co mmunity”. This was not the case since article 171 
provides for this possibility. 
38 There may be different requirements for research facilities in medical and nuclear sciences in 
comparison to astronomy or environmental disciplines. 
EN 21   EN The membership of ERIs will be limited to Me mber States, third countries and international 
organisations with the possibility of particip ating countries to mandate public or private 
entities with a public-service mission to exercise their rights and duties on their behalf.  
The participation of private legal entities with  a commercial character is excluded by the 
nature of the ERIs (orientation towards basic research activities, c onstructed and operated 
by public funds, widely open to the European scientific community). The objective is to help 
Member States (and Associated States) to devel op Research Infrastructures which they 
cannot realise at national level because of la ck of resources, competences or because of a 
much wider scope than the national one. The nat ure of existing national research facilities is 
public (this is the case in all fields e.g. th e synchrotrons Soleil (FR) or Diamond (UK) in 
physics, oceanographic boats in the field of environment or databases on ageing in social 
sciences) and the development at European level should reflect the public nature. In addition, the opening to public private partn erships would exclude the possibility to obtain 
advantages such as VAT exemption, generating th erefore more difficulti es in the negotiation 
of the agreement between different Member St ates (see complementary remarks in chapter 
6). The opening to public private partnerships might in addition raise issues of State aid and/or generate potential claims for distortion of competition or limitations in the access to 
such facilities; however, the public nature of such facilities should not exclude the 
possibilities of collaboration projects with indust ry or possible sponsorship from industry.  
ii) Seat:  
It is foreseen that an ERI shall have its seat in  a Member State or in an Associated State to 
the Community Research Framework Programme. In  this later case there would need to be 
an instrument (e.g. international agreement) or a specific declaration from the Associated 
State stipulating that it is bound by the stipulations of the Regulation.  
iii) Applicable law:  
An ERI shall be governed by  
a) the Community law and, in particular, the Regulation;  
b) by the law of the State, where the ERI h as its statutory seat, in matters not regulated 
by Community law 
c) in derogation from letter (b), by the law of the States in which the ERI operates, and  
d) by its Statutes and by its implementing ru les adopted in conformity with its Statutes. 
EN 22   EN  
 
 
ERIs will not be "Community bodies"  
Care will be taken to ensure that ERIs will not be "Community bodies"  under Article 185 of the 
Financial Regulation. The cumulative conditions for considering an entity as a Community body are as 
follows. It must: a) be a body set up by the Comm unities; b) have legal personality and c) actually 
receive contributions charged to the Communities' budget. 
Whereas each ERI would correspond to the first two options it is not foreseen that the Community 
itself would be a primary financer and therefore c ondition c) would not apply. However, this will not 
exclude the possibility for an ERI to benefit from Co mmunity funds in the context of calls for proposal 
to the EC Framework Programme.  
 
 
EN 23   EN  
 
Desired characteristics of a dedicated legal instrument 
The following describes shortly the main characteris tics of a dedicated legal instrument for European 
research infrastructures (ERI) as they emerge from the consultation of stakeholders : 
Nature : The nature of the ERI - its scientific non-comme rcial character - and its purpose - to provide 
world-class research servi ces to researchers with due attention to  the principle of excellence - will 
need to be guaranteed. The "European" character s hould be clearly defined and could be seen as 
fulfilling two cumulative conditions in terms of membership and of pan-European interest. These 
characteristics would have to be recognised at its  creation through appropriate procedures. An ERI 
would also be subject of a periodic international evaluation. 
Membership : The ESFRI Roadmap includes infrastructure projects initiated by governments only. 
Therefore, membership is limited to Member States, th ird states and intergovernmental organisations.  
Seat: The ERI's central administration should be located in the EU or within an Associated State.  
Statutes : The statutes should be proposed by the f ounding members themselves, indicating the basic 
principles for the management of the research infr astructure; a particular obligation within these 
statutes will be to demonstrate the nature of a European Research Infrastructure. 
Organs : The ERI should identify its organs and their comp etences in its statutes. The following organs 
at least should be foreseen: (1) an assembly of  members which should have the widest possible 
competences; (2) an executive director - or board of  directors - who implements the ERI's policies and 
is the ERI's legal representative. 
Staff: The basic principles of employment will be de fined in the Statutes thereby offering stakeholders 
the maximum of flexibility. 
Liability of members : Provisions for limited liability of the members in respect of the obligations of the ERI 
are to be provided. 
Exemptions : VAT exemptions could be provided  by the states where the ERI will have its seat or where its 
facilities are located, as it is the case for international organisations. Arrangements common in international organisations for public procurements could also be requested if appropriate. 
 
6.  ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF  THE POLICY OPTIONS  
The identified four policy options consider the us e of specific legal forms to create Europe wide 
partnerships for the construction and opera tion of European Research Infrastructures.  
In sub-section 6.1 we summarise, in general terms,  the indirect economic, social and environmental 
impacts that the research infrastructures to be developed would have. In section 6.2 we assess the 
different options by analysing their strengths, w eaknesses and impacts on the policy objectives stated 
in section 4.1. Finally, in section 6.3 we draw ove rall conclusions, provide a comparative assessment 
of the different policy options and identify, on that basis, the preferred option. 
EN 24   EN 6.1. Economic, social and environmental im pacts of research infrastructures  
i) Socio-economic impacts 
Knowledge in general and scientific  knowledge in particular is th e basis of competitive, modern 
economies. That is why Europe's ability to sust ain a competitive edge in knowledge creation and 
innovation is at the core of the Lisbon Strategy fo r Growth and Jobs. The existence of and access to 
leading research infrastructures plays a key part in  maintaining Europe's competitiveness in research 
and innovation.  
The example of the Grenoble scientific polygon is often given as a key example for its strong socio-
economic impacts. Major research infrastructures we re implanted here during the second half of the 
20th century: ILL (Neutron scattering), ESRF (Synchrotr on Radiation) and EMBL (Structural biology). 
Several research laboratories are also on the same site: those from CEA, CNRS, from the Joseph 
Fourier University; ST Microelectronics Laboratories; a very large nanotechnology laboratory (MINATEC) as well as an Engineering and a Management school. This represents about 6000 
persons; including 1100 post-docs and PHD student s, 5000 publications, and 300 patents per year. 
This example shows that state-of-the-art research in frastructures with the appropriate critical mass of 
scientific research skills offer the conditions that are required to carry  out cutting-edge research and to 
develop the required high level human capital.  
Research infrastructures also play  a clear societal and economic role by generating discoveries and 
opportunities for new industrial applications. For example the work carried out during the recent years 
in several research facilities in the Copenhagen- Malmö-Lund region has today led to the so-called 
"Medicon Valley", a Danish-Swedish science, innovation and business cluster set up in an 
INTERREG project. It is a striking example of how  collaboration across borders can pay off and how 
science can drive economic development. The lega l structure behind Medicon Valley is based on 
contracts between the involved universities. In ten years, this region has established itself as 
Scandinavia's strongest life-science cluster. Around  300 companies, employing 40,000 people, are 
currently engaged in R&D activities and ten to 15  start-up companies are established every year. 
The landscape of Europe shows that, where European  Research Infrastructures have their site, often 
“technology clusters” or so-called technology parks can be found. Such strategic centres offer better 
possibilities for interdisciplinary research and great er attraction to high-tech firms. The innovative 
results of research conducted in these infrastructures  have therefore a multiplier effect, creating new 
economic activities and fresh employment opportun ities. Moreover, high-quality centres attract 
talented researchers and as such, they are powerful tools for stimulating their trans-national mobility. 
ii) Environmental and societal impacts Society faces many challenges. These include global warming, energy production, water supplies, a 
sustainable environment, the threat of terrorism, or quality of life for an ageing population. For example, the simulation of global warming and reducti on of the ice in the arctic and Antarctic regions 
is based on the continuous monitoring of various parameters by well-cooperating distributed facilities 
from different countries and on the efficient use of high power computers treating data filed for many 
years in large digital scientific repositories.  
As another example, the current results of the SHARE ESFRI project (dealing with the setting-up of a 
pan-European database (15 countries today) on hea lth, ageing and retirement) show that improving 
health generates higher employment among older work ers and thus pays for itself; woman live longer 
but men are less sick -- and this differs according to socio-economic status; analysis of data also shows 
that family support for the elderly is not vanishing,  it is still strong not only in the Mediterranean but 
also in the North of Europe. 
The future of our planet needs research on biodiv ersity and implies keeping collections of plants, 
seeds, etc. In addition, biodivers ity e-science enables "distributed large scale" research. This will be 
the only way to participate in new developments in th is area. This also corresponds to the objectives of 
EN 25   EN the ESFRI LIFEWATCH project currently being developed as a major component of the European 
contribution to GEOSS.  
These few examples show that research infrastructures are one key instrument in bringing together a 
wide diversity of stakeholders to look for soluti ons to many of the above-mentioned problems. They 
can be seen as a focal point for such interactions , in addition to inspiring new research ideas and 
attracting young enquiring minds.  
iii) Which European S&T system actors and stakeholders would be affected? 
In the first place the community of individual resear chers and of companies, universities and research 
institutions carrying out research would be positively affected by the creation of new European 
research infrastructures. Research infrastructures, vi a their contributions to the achievement of the 
Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs also have the potential to affect the lives of all European citizens. 
In addition, the impacts of research infrastructur es spread beyond the EU, as they affect the global 
research community (as participants) and societies worldwide (as beneficiaries). 
Apart of the new facilities to be built (see ESFRI ro admap), there are today more than 600 identified 
research infrastructures within the different Member  States which could benefit from integration into 
distributed structures, managed at pan-European le vel to increase their effi ciency. More than 25,000 
engineers and technicians work in these facilities,  which in turn serve more than 240,000 scientists39.  
As already mentioned, the new Member States and t hose States which do not currently host European 
Research Infrastructures would be positively affected by such a new legal framework. 
                                                 
39 Survey realised in 2006 by the EC and the ESF– see  
http://www.ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures   
EN 26   EN 6.2. Main strengths, weaknesses and impacts of the different policy options 
Option 1: No specific EU action 
This is an option where the Community would not act. Member States will continue using the existing 
instruments, with identified inconveniencies. The ta ble below summarises most of the main strengths 
and main weaknesses of the current legal forms an d frameworks. This information was gathered 
following the extensive consultation carried out between 2006 and 2008 and shows that the existing 
legal instruments all have strong limitations fo r the implementation of new European research 
infrastructure. 
legal form Main weaknesses  Main strengths 
Inter-
governmental 
agreement  • Heavy and lengthy negotiation procedures for reaching a 
formal agreement between Member States 
• The salaries, privileges and immunities for staff no t 
considered justified for most ERIs  
• Difficulty to modify / amend such agreements • Sound and complete convention or treaty (mission, 
function and structure) binding the partner on a long-
term solid ground. 
• Clear management and governa nce. Attractive salaries, 
privileges and immunities for staff. Advantages such as 
tax exemptions (VAT and salary taxes) 
• Possible co-operation with non-EU states Companies 
(e.g. Diamond (UK), 
SOLEIL (FR) • Legal forms for companies are specific to each country 
(some countries do not even have such legal forms). There is 
reluctance by partners from different countries to accept a 
foreign legislation  
• Does not clearly reflect the spirit of a truly European 
endeavour that should correspond to a European research 
infrastructure 
 • Well integrated in the country where the researc h 
infrastructure is located 
• Clear management, governan ce and accountability; 
avoid also high costs of intergovernmental institutes.  
• Flexibility: partnership ( public, private, European, no n 
European); staff policy 
• Usually, private procurement regulations EGTC • Aim of the EGTC of strengthening economic and social 
cohesion could limit openness a nd scientific development 
possibilities of the research infrastructure.  
• Non-European institutions / authorities can only become 
members of EGTC under certain conditions. 
• The EGTC as a legal body has unlimited liability for its debts
(up to its assets), but as a ru le there is a residual unlimite d 
liability of its members, if assets are not sufficient. 
• The Regulation does not offer any specific rules or 
derogations on taxation, staff rules or public procurement. • Can be attractive for medium size European researc h 
infrastructures using Cohesion Policy funds; can even be 
used for large scale European research infrastructures 
outside Cohesion Policy Funds, where national 
authorities would be the EGTC's members. 
• As a legal instrument under Community law, EGTC 
provides for the required European image. 
• Can be the solution for such infrastructures where non-
EU members are neither needed nor wanted anyway.  EEIG • Difficulty for non European countries to join 
• Unlimited liability/joint liability of members 
• Upper limit of number of employees  • None since not appropriate for ERIs. Europ
ean C. 
Society 
(ECS) • Not appropriate for ERIs since they are for groupings o f 
economic nature 
 • Idem above. Europea
n 
Compan
y  • European Company addresses public limited companies that 
already exist and have their seat in the EU Member States. 
This does not coincide with the set-up of new research 
infrastructures. • Idem above. Foundati
ons • Laws from some countries other than The Netherlands or 
Germany are restrictive for foundations 
 • Clear management and governance but accounting rules 
adapted to industrial use  
• Avoid costs of intergovernmental institutes and allows 
flexible staff policy  
EN 27   EN The following table summarizes the f itness for purpose of such an option: 
Policy objectives  Option 1: No specific ac tion at European level 
Ease and speed-up the 
process of setting-up new 
European research 
infrastructures No impact according to current situation. Stakeholders would have to find on their 
own the best legal solution for their problem. Clearly, according to the experience of the last 20 years in Europe, the national of  intergovernmental routes are not easy. The 
example of the Intergovernmental organisa tions, such as CERN , ESO, EMBL, etc, 
shows that several years are required to set- up such facilities, due to the international 
Treaty needed to be set-up first. As far as national schemes, the reluctance of other MS 
to enter into a partnership based on anot her national law generates long negotiations, 
as shown with the current negotiations on the XFEL or FA IR projects. The existing 
EGTC scheme could however pr ove to be quite relevant for the setting-up of some 
partnerships. 
Increase the number of 
European research 
infrastructures  
across ERA The current situation in Europe shows that no new research infrastructure has been set-
up since the last 22 years apart of ITER (whe re the EC had a lead ing role). Clearly, 
this option - meaning no specific action from the European Commission – would not 
lead to any impact on this criterion. 
Contribute to the further 
development of a European 
policy for research 
infrastructures The efficient and timely implementation of an y policy depends on the availability of 
tools, be they financial incentives or le gal instruments. A major step has been done 
since two years with the development of the ESFRI roadmap and the emergence of 35 
new projects. Almost 3 over 4 research / scie nce stakeholders in Europe believe today 
that a European legal framewo rk should be developed to support such development. In 
not acting in this field the Community would clearly not follow-up its political ambitions nor support the development of a true European policy in this field. 
Provide a cost efficient 
procedure for setting-up new 
European research 
infrastructures 
 As explained above, the time and human re sources needed when using national or 
intergovernmental frameworks  generate a low cost-efficiency. The EGTC scheme 
could however be quite cost-eff icient, as the approval by the national authorities has to 
be done within three months after the submission of the necessary documents. 
However, more experience is needed. 
Provide all the features that a 
legal form should have for 
European research 
infrastructures  Only some of the existing schemes have th e potential to provide  the features (see 
details on page 23) that a legal form ideally should ha ve for European research 
infrastructures. The only schemes possible seem to be the ones used by the current 
intergovernmental organisations.  
Increase of the positive image 
of the EU at international 
level through the 
reinforcement of ERA This option, meaning no specific action fro m the European Commission, would imply 
that the EC will be seen as passive, not us ing its power of initiative to improve the 
efficient execution of Community research actions. 
Contribute to achievement of 
socio-economic, 
environmental and societal 
impacts This option would not stimulat e the emergence of a number of new ERIs, therefore the 
indirect positive socio-economic , environmental or societal  impacts as described in 
section 6.1 would be di fficult to be largely increased according to the present state of 
the art. 
EN 28   EN Option 2: Coordination action at EU level for the development of best practices 
Coordination is clearly an activity for which the European Commission has a long and positive 
experience. It would help stakeholder converge more  quickly to the best possible existing legal forms 
corresponding their needs. This will not remove, of course, the inherent lim itation that existing legal 
forms have as regards their utilisation fro ERIs.  
The information below summarises the main st rengths and weaknesses of such an option. 
Main strengths  
• Helps stakeholder identify the current lega l form best adapted to their needs; 
• Through coordination and joint reflection work, th is option may indirectly contribute to the long-
term development of a European decision-making process for ERIs;  
Main weaknesses  
• Coordination actions are not sufficient to devel op a more favourable environment for the timely 
development of European research Infrastructures; 
• Does not really ease the existing processes; 
• Does not really increase the dynamic image of ERA. 
In addition this option, meaning just a coordina tion action from the European Commission, would not 
totally correspond to the needs expressed by the research and science stakeholders nor lead to an 
optimal timing for the development of new research facilities at European level.  
Coordination has its limitations. As indicated by the coordinator of BBMRI (an ESFRI roadmap 
project currently in its "preparatory phase") " BBMRI, as such a distributed infrastructure, with 
biobanks related to hospitals and to research ins titutes faces the fact that such biobanks do not have 
an independent legal status. A Eur opean status should help facing this  complexity by providing the 
possibility for these institutions to accept the Eu ropean status for one of their activities, i.e. 
biobanking. BBMRI should also be able to recruit sta ff for the network: these could be in different 
centres but receiving the same salaries, which will he lp reducing brain drain from low income states ". 
Coordination would clearly not help in devel oping for European infr astructures formed as 
"distributed" structures. 
This option should, however, be continued and furthe r developed in parallel to  the development of a 
new legal framework. This would allow implementing the ESFRI roadmap faster, as a complementary 
combination of both options offers flexibility and ch oice of legal forms adapted to the individual case, 
while ensuring strategic coherence and excellence.  
EN 29   EN The following table summarizes the f itness for purpose of such an option: 
Policy objectives  Option 2: Coordination action at EU level for best practices 
Ease and speed-up the process 
of setting-up new European 
research infrastructures A coordination action could simplify the work of stakeholders by helping them to 
identify amongst existing legal forms the one best adapted to their needs. However, 
existing legal forms have inherent limitations  as regards their utilisation for European 
research infrastructures and therefore th e impact of this action, according to 
stakeholders, can only be very limited.  
The simplification of the work to be carried  though this sharing of information would 
speed the time needed for the required legal work. Current experiences (e.g. the FAIR 
and X-FEL projects) show that one or two years could be gained according to a situation where no coordination would exist.  However, for the same reason as above 
the impact can only be very limited. 
Increase the number of 
European research 
infrastructures  
across ERA The impact can only be moderate since existin g legal forms have in most cases several 
limitations. The coordination in the frame of  the Preparatory Phase of the today 34 
ESFRI projects would increase the awareness of the different stakeholders across ERA with the possible consequence of more initiatives being launched. 
Contribute to the further 
development of a European 
policy for research 
infrastructures Such coordination activities might only invol ve Member States to a very limited 
extent. Therefore, their impacts on the de velopment of a European policy and/or 
decision-making process for research infra structures will be limited. Coordination 
actions are also not sufficient to develo p a more favourable environment for the 
timely development of ERIs.  
Provide a cost efficient 
procedure for setting-up new 
European research 
infrastructures 
 This sharing of information and exchange  of good practices w ould provide a more 
cost efficient procedure since it would avoid each consortium having to repeat the 
same assessment work and to converge more  quickly to the best legal form. However 
again since the Community would answer onl y a minor part of the real problem the 
impact can only be very low. 
Provide all the features that a 
legal form should have for 
European research 
infrastructures  Only a solution developed under inter-govern mental agreements can provide all the 
required features. However, only very few projects would need such an approach. 
Increase of the positive image 
of the EU at international 
level through the 
reinforcement of ERA Pure coordination actions could only have a moderate impact on the problem at hand 
and therefore, necessarily, cannot contribute effectively to the reinforcement of the 
ERA and to increase the positive image of the EU.  
Contribute to achievement of 
socio-economic, 
environmental and societal 
impacts This option could stimulate th e emergence of some new ERIs, therefore the indirect 
positive socio-economic, environmental or societ al impacts as described in section 6.1 
could be moderate. 
EN 30   EN Option 3: Development of Joint Undertakings 
This option needs a Community appr oach. The decision to set up a joint undertaking would be made 
by the Council based on a proposal from the European Commission. Th is structure ensures the single 
effective management of a programme combining various funding sources from the public and private 
sectors. This possibility has been u sed for the following Joint Undertaki ngs recently set up: Clean Sky, 
ENIAC, IMI and Artemis. Few years ago, GALILEO was also set-up as a Joint Undertaking. 
However, it should be noted that there has been no research infrastructure implemented following this 
procedure during the last 20 years. Indeed, although it seems a rather good structure for managing industrial research activities, the negative impacts of Joint Undertakings, when applied to several new 
research infrastructures (more than 30 during the ne xt years) are for example the difficulty for non 
European Countries to join or the necessary repe titive work which is implied at Commission and 
Council level, and which will not be optim um in a time-efficiency perspective. 
The information below summarises the main st rengths and weaknesses of such an option. 
Main strengths
 
• Clear management and governance; 
• Sound and effective financial rules ensure th e effective management of major programmes 
combining public and private sources of funding; 
• May contribute to the long-term development of a European decision-making process for ERIs; 
• Adapted to industrial use. 
Main weaknesses  
• Long negotiations at Council level which require very strong Community involvement and which 
do not speed up the overall process; 
• Non easy-to-use instrument by European stakehol ders since it needs initia tive from the European 
Commission; 
• Does not really provide the foundations for a European policy for research infrastructures; 
• Difficulty for non European countries to join;  
• Often considered as Community Bodies when ever the Community has to contribute. 
This option, corresponding to a clear pro-activ e action from the European Commission, would 
nevertheless lead to a time consuming process,  since the setting-up of every new research 
infrastructure would need an ad-hoc legisla tive process at Commission and Council level. 
EN 31   EN  
The following table summarizes the f itness for purpose of such an option: 
Policy objectives  Option 3: Development of Joint Undertakings 
Ease and speed-up the process 
of setting-up new European 
research infrastructures The use of Joint Undertakings requires the initiative of the European Commission. It 
implies case by case decisions by the Counc il, following the procedure of Article 171. 
The procedure would be the same as for any EC initiative, requiring repeated 
discussions at Council level for everyone of the foreseen new European Research 
Infrastructures. For the stakeholders an d for the Commission (who will need to 
organise a long preparatory phase before ea ch initiative), this  option will not be 
simple nor easy. 
If resources are available, notably at Commi ssion level, the process of setting-up new 
research infrastructures will be sped-up according to the current situation. The 
example of the JTIs approved during the last  few months shows that the overall legal 
process could be done in around one year, per project. 
Increase the number of 
European research 
infrastructures  
across ERA The proactive attitude of the Commission w ould have as a consequence a rather high 
impact on this criterion, with the conditions that sufficient resources are available. 
This option, based on specific Commission in itiatives, could allow a take-up of some 
of the 35 ESFRI projects. 
Contribute to the further 
development of a European 
policy for research 
infrastructures A major step has been done since two years with the development of the ESFRI 
roadmap and the emergence of 35 new projec ts. In acting in this field the Community 
would clearly follow-up its political comm itments and respond to the needs of the 
stakeholders. However, just setting-up Jo int Undertakings cannot be seen as 
supporting sufficiently the development of a true European policy in this field. 
Provide a cost efficient 
procedure for setting-up new 
European research 
infrastructures 
 Using article 171 for the setting-up of Joint Undertakings requires a proactive attitude 
of the European Commission. In addition, fo r the various projects envisaged, such an 
option would imply the development of in dividual procedures. Such an option 
requires the availability of human resources, the estimated  amount of which would be 
around two person-years per project for the EC, i.e. around 70 person-years for the 35 ESFRI projects, and about ten time s more from the stakeholders' side
40.  
Provide all the features that a 
legal form should have for 
European research 
infrastructures  Such a scheme would allow providing many fe atures that a legal form ideally should 
have for European research infrastructures.  
Increase of the positive image 
of the EU at international 
level through the 
reinforcement of ERA This option implies that the EC will be seen as active, using its power of initiative to 
improve the efficient execution of Community research actions. However, the heaviness of the procedures might not tota lly increase the positive image of the EU at 
international level. In addition, ERA woul d be reinforced through the emergence of 
new entities, but not really stre ngthened on its legal framework. 
Contribute to achievement of 
socio-economic, 
environmental and societal 
impacts This option, if resources are available, could stimulate the emergence of more new 
ERIs, therefore the indirect positive so cio-economic, environmental or societal 
impacts as described in section 6.1 could be medium to high. 
                                                 
40 Based on the current experience of DG RTD with RI projects and JTIs 
EN 32   EN  
Option 4: Development of a dedicated legal framework at Community level 
The trends in the research infrastructure field are both (1) the increased comple xity and cost of such 
facilities (requiring de-facto cooperation between sever al Member States), and (2) the development of 
distributed facilities, where several existing facilities need to integrat e their activities at pan-European 
level to respond to the ever increasing scientific a nd societal challenges. In both cases the setting-up of 
international consortia is needed. 
Considering that many different partners from diff erent countries would need to participate in the 
setting-up of such new entities, an important advantag e of a dedicated legal instrument at European 
level is that such a Regulation would provide a le gal personality which is recognised and applicable 
with immediate effect in ever y EU Member State and would pr ovide the required conditions for 
effective work at European level.  
Such status would also allow to better access funding sources, in particular EIB. 
The Regulation would provide for an empowerment from the legislator to the Commission (EC) for 
conferring a status of "European research infrast ructure" – ERI. This would ease the application 
process. The Regulation would be complemented by  clear procedures by which this status will be 
conferred by the legislator.  
• This would make it possible for interested entities to  take the initiative and to draw up the statutes 
based on this framework regulation; 
• This would ensure recognition of a reference scheme all over Europe; 
• By providing an empowerment to the EC, ultimatel y a lot of time will be gained for the foreseen 
30+ new large facilities which are foreseen within the next ten years41. 
Taking again the example of BBMRI, the European status should enable to face the complexity of 
integrating different national biobanks, the possibility  for the different national member institutions to 
accept the European status for one of their activiti es and to provide integrated, multinational services 
to research institutes and laboratories; a European st atus would help extending the network to other 
centres and eventually build or set up new entities requi red by the network, for example a BBMRI - IT 
centre .  
The European Commission will ensure the overall coor dination of this initiative. The European Added 
Value will be mainly linked with a better time an d cost efficiency referring to the other possible 
options. It should be noted that this would not n ecessitate much more resources than those presently 
used (FP7 resources) to follow the preparatory ph ase of the new research infrastructures projects.   
                                                 
41 The four main factors for the quicker setting-up of a European research infrastructure are: 
(1) the time saved in avoiding t he repetition of negotiations, project by project, to analyse and discuss the 
best legal form for such international research organisations, with related advantages and 
disadvantages, since this analysis would already be do ne at the time of setting-up the new regulation, 
(2) the time saved in trying to find alternative solutions  to deficiencies of existing instruments, the new legal 
framework providing an "on-the-shelve" complementar y tool filling a real gap at Community level, 
(3) the fact that such international bodies bein g normally exempted from VAT would avoid discussions 
between Member States and Associated States about a possible unbalance in the "return on investment" 
made by these countries in case that another legal form, not subject to exemption, would be chosen. 
(4) the time saved in avoiding discussions in each national parliament related to the approval of a needed 
international agreement, in the case that this new legal framework would not exist, whereas its existence 
would automatically allow for such recognition in every Member State.  
EN 33   EN The following table summarizes the f itness for purpose of such an option: 
Policy objectives  Option 4: Development of a legal framework at Community level  
Ease and speed-up the process 
of setting-up new European 
research infrastructures The development of a new legal framework at European level would allow filling a 
gap in the existing legal instruments availa ble, would help in the harmonisation of 
current processes and, thr ough the empowerment by the Council to the European 
Commission, could simplify and ease the overa ll process. The procedure would avoid 
repeated discussions at Council level for everyone of the foreseen new European 
Research Infrastructures. 
This option would allow Member States fundi ng authorities to significantly reduce the 
time needed for the identification and the analysis of a suitable legal form by all 
interested financial partners. Consider ing the XFEL experience, proposing such a 
legal framework that can be easily adopted by  all partners could have speeded up the 
ex-ante process by two years. The example of the JTIs approved during the last few 
months shows that the overall legal pr ocess could be done in around one year. 
Increase the number of 
European research 
infrastructures 
across ERA  As under option 3, the proactive attit ude of the Commission will have as a 
consequence a positive impact on this crit erion. This regulation would allow a rapid 
take-up of many of the ESFRI projects (s ee again annex 2). This may also affect 
positively the Member States with no real experience in this field. 
Contribute to the further 
development of a European 
policy for research 
infrastructures In acting in this field the Community w ould clearly follow-up its political ambitions 
and respond to the needs of the stakeholde rs. In addition, the setting-up a European 
legal framework for new European Research In frastructures will be  seen as supporting 
the development of the ESFRI roadmap and of a true European policy in this field. 
Provide a cost efficient 
procedure for setting-up new 
European research 
infrastructures 
 The first step relates to the setting-up of this regulation. In the second step, i.e. 
proposing a new ERI, the initiative will co me from the stakeholders. The third step, 
i.e. approval of the ERI will need the follow-up of an evaluation and selection 
procedure for which the Commission is quite experienced. In addition, for the various projects envisaged, such an option would allow for batch per batch procedures. The 
total human resources needed would hardly exceed the current resources for the 
follow-up of the ESFRI preparatory Phases under FP7, i.e. around 35 person-years for the 35 ESFRI projects, and about ten tim es more from the stakeholders' side
42. This 
means a 50% gain according to option 3. 
Provide all the features that a 
legal form should have for 
European research 
infrastructures  As under option 3, such a scheme would allo w providing many features that a legal 
form should have for an ERI, according to  the wishes expressed by the research 
stakeholders. However, not passing through a formal Council procedure, this option 
would add much more flexib ility than under option 3. 
Increase of the positive image 
of the EU at international 
level through the 
reinforcement of ERA This option implies that the EC will be seen as active, using its power of initiative to 
improve the efficient execution of Communi ty research actions. In addition, the 
efficiency of the procedure would in crease the positive image of the EU at 
international level. In addition, ERA woul d be reinforced through the emergence of 
new entities, as well as streng thened on its legal framework. 
Contribute to achievement of 
socio-economic, 
environmental and societal 
impacts This option, under the current human resources provision, would be the one 
stimulating the emergence of the maximu m of new ERIs, therefore the indirect 
positive socio-economic, environmental or societ al impacts as described in section 6.1 
could be high. 
                                                 
42 Based on the current experience of DG RTD with RI projects and JTIs 
EN 34   EN In summary, the following main strengths and weaknesses of the foreseen instrument are: 
Main strengths  
• Responding to European political ambition, able to tackle current challenges (e.g. 
internationalisation of research; achievement of cr itical mass; development of distributed facilities; 
development of reference models); 
• Contributing to building an EU identity around flagship scientific facilities; 
• Providing for all the features that an ideal legal form should have for European research 
infrastructures, namely 
– a legal personality which is recognised in all Member States; 
– advantages which are allowed at a national le vel to international research organisations; 
– flexibility to adapt to the requirements of  the different specific infrastructures; 
– open to non-European countries. 
• Increase of the positive image of the Eu ropean Union at international level; 
• Easy to use and speeding-up the process of setting up an ERI, if the Commission is empowered to 
take the decision to create it. 
The stakeholders' consultation realised during the la st two years, including the representatives of the 
ESFRI projects, has shown a declared interest to potentially use such a Community legal framework. 
The stakeholders also indicated that its impacts, apart of its harmonising and European nature, would 
be linked with the possible advantages which c ould be conferred to such new legal entities, 
advantages43 which should be compared with those benefiting the international research facilities 
when established in a specific Member State. 
Such a legal framework will also indir ectly support the reinforcement of a coordination mechanism  
leading to a better decision-making at European level , which is clearly lacking at European level for 
new research infrastructures of pan-European interest (in line with ESFRI recommendations).  
In addition to being a legal form aimed at easing the setting up of the European infrastructures on the 
ESFRI Roadmap, the ERI will allow the participa tion of non EC countries, which will have positive 
impacts, either because they will bring contri butions needed for the projects or because the 
infrastructures have to be located in specific sites outside the EU. During the setting up phase, 
the existence of this Community legal form shoul d induce a marginal burden on Associated States, 
which are already familiar with Community proced ures. As for third countries the induced burden 
should be similar to the one necessary for setting up an interna tional organisation. 
Main weaknesses  
• Risk of bureaucratization that may delay a nd limit the use of this new legal form.  
                                                 
43 VAT exemption for example is mainly intended to avoi d that taxes financed by other States all accrue to 
the host country. VAT exemption should thus facilitat e negotiations. On a broader level, as research 
infrastructures are mainly financed by public aut horities, VAT exemption should have no net direct 
impact on the budgets of the Member  States. The indirect medium-long-term socio-economic impacts 
resulting from scientific and technological advances  made possible by research infrastructures should 
largely counterbalance the loss due to VAT exemption from the host country. 
EN 35   EN • Lack of possible interest from stakeholders if ER I legal status does not bring additional advantages 
compared to competing legal forms, or at least th e same advantages as existing research facilities in 
the frame of intergovernmental arrangements. 
6.3. Overall conclusions and comparative assess ment of the different policy options 
The main conclusions concerning each option are reported below together with a summary table 
comparing the impact of each policy option on the policy objectives. 
Option 1: No specific EU action 
This option corresponds to the situation few years ago: each consortium, through an ad-hoc process, 
tries to identify the existing legal form that could be the most appropriate for their project, according 
to three possible legal bases: international, Commu nity or national law. Experience shows that the 
creation of international organisations tends to  bind the partners on a long-term solid ground. 
However, this implies heavy and lengthy negotiatio n procedures. Moreover, the salaries, privileges 
and immunities for staff are not considered justifie d for most new ERIs. On another side, Community 
legal forms such as EEIG, EGTC, ECS or EP are not fully appropriate, either because their objectives 
are out of the scope of Research Infrastructures or because they exhibit speci fic limitations. Although 
national forms were used in a few cases, they re main specific to each country and this remains a 
serious obstacle to the participation of other c ountries. Existing legal forms are therefore not 100% 
tailored to the specificities of today European r esearch infrastructures and th is has been the main 
conclusions of the work carried out by ESFRI an d the European Commission during the last two 
years. In addition, in not acting in this area, the Community would not be playing its natural role to 
help Member States to catalyse and leverage their actions in the field of research infrastructures. 
 
Possible implications:  Under this option the development of new Research Infrastructures of 
European interest is likely to remain a very slow, case by case, process. The European Research Area 
is likely to remain fragmented and it will remain diffic ult to follow its evolution since the Community 
will not be a major actor.  
 
 
Option 2: Coordination action at EU level 
Option 2 corresponds to a "light" form of interv ention from the European Commission, helping those 
involved in building ERIs to identify problems and n eeds, exchange information about how to tackle 
these problems, establish best practices, etc. The Co mmission, in particular, already ensures that the 
results of the work carried out on legal issues within the EC funded " Preparatory phase for the 
projects in the ESFRI Roadmap " are disseminated as widely as possible. This information could be 
further compiled into practical guidelines comprising a compendium of possible legal forms identifying their main strengths and weaknesses. As explained in the conclusion for Option 1, existing 
legal forms have inherent lim itations as regards their utilisation for ERIs. Although collecting 
information about these legal forms will not remove these limitations, this could help consortia to 
converge more quickly to the most appropriate legal form. 
 
Possible implications:  Under this option stakeholders are able to identify more quickly the most 
appropriate legal forms but the development of new ERIs will remain highly specific to a given 
country or project. The coordination of the different funding sources at EU level will be eased but the 
image of ERA will remain weak.  
 
 
EN 36   EN Option 3: Development of Joint Undertakings 
Option 3 corresponds to the development of Join t Undertakings by the Community, according to 
Article 171 of the EC-Treaty, on case by case basis, every time that a need for such setting-up occurs. 
The statutes of a Joint Undertaking are not pre-define d and, therefore, this leaves a lot of freedom to 
the founding members  
However, the development of Joint Undertakings  requires a very strong Community involvement 
resulting in the European Commission becoming a member and main financial contributor. This results in the creation of "Community bodies" w ith the corresponding characteristics and constraints 
(application of Staff Regulation, Protocol on Immu nities and Financial Regulation of the European 
Communities).  
 
Possible implications:  Considering the present situation in Europe where Member States wish to 
continue to play a central role in the developmen t and financing of research infrastructures it is clear 
that creation of Joint Undertakings for the ne w ERIs could be only considered in exceptional 
circumstances. 
 
 
Option 4: Development of a dedicated legal framework at Community level 
Option 4 proposes adopting a framework Regulation on the basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty 
which contains empowerment of the Commission to set up, by decision, each individual ERI.  
The membership of an ERI would be open to Me mber States, third countries and international 
organisations with the possibility of participating co untries to mandate public or private entities with a 
public-service mission to exercise their rights and du ties on their behalf. The Member States will be 
the key actors in the setting up of the new entities an d will be their primary financers. The Community 
only intends to have a catalytic role. As such, the pr oposed approach will be completely different from 
the one related to the JTIs (where the Commissi on is a key member and financier) and the newly 
created entities will never be considered "Community bodies" as under option 3.  
The Regulation will include only the minimum elemen ts to provide the essential features that a legal 
form for research infrastructures ideally should have  i.e. a) to provide a legal personality which is 
recognised in all Member States and b) to provide those privileges and exemptions which are allowed 
at a national level to international research organisati ons. The flexibility needed to  adapt to the need of 
a specific infrastructure will be provided by the st atutes which are not pre-defined by the Regulation 
and would have to be developed by each consortium accordi ng to their specific requirements. 
The advantages of this option are in its "fit-for-purpo se" character, and a better time efficiency of the 
overall process, needed for the timely setting-up of  new ERIs. In parallel, as under option 2, the 
Commission will continue its coordinati ng role through the support of the " Preparatory phase for the 
projects in the ESFRI Roadmap ". 
 
Possible implications:  The development of ERIs will be boosted by the initiative of the Commission 
filling the existing gap at EU level. This will allow th e Member and Associated States together with the 
European Commission to steer the cost-effective development of many flagship projects of pan-
European relevance, and in support of the Lisbon obj ectives. The Community will be seen as play a 
leading role in the setting-up of these consortia . The image of ERA will be strengthened.  
 
EN 37   EN  
Summary assessment of the four policy options 
The following table compares the impact of each  policy option on the policy objectives. It clear 
identifies option 4 as the most effective and efficien t to achieve the policy objectives of the proposal. 
Policy objectives  Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 
Ease and speed-up the process of 
setting-up new European research 
infrastructures   
Generally 
Low   
Generally 
Low   
Moderate   
High 
Increase the number of European 
research infrastructures  
across ERA Very Low Moderate Moderate High 
Contribute to the further development 
of a European policy for research 
infrastructures Very Low Moderate Moderate High 
Provide a cost efficient procedure for 
setting-up new European research 
infrastructures Generally 
Low Generally 
Low Low High 
Provide all the features that a legal 
form should have for European 
research infrastructures  Depends on 
scheme Depends on 
scheme Moderate  High 
Increase of the positive image of the 
EU at international level through the 
reinforcement of ERA Very Low Moderate Moderate High 
Contribute to achievement of socio-
economic, environmental and societal 
impacts Generally 
Low Moderate Moderate High 
 
EN 38   EN  
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
A monitoring and evaluation system will be pu t in place to monitor the European research 
infrastructures that are set up, and to assess the exte nt to which the new legal framework has met its 
objectives. 
7.1. Continuous monitoring 
The European Commission will ensure the overall coordination of this initiative. A regulatory 
Committee will support the European Commission in the management of the new legal framework. 
In addition, whenever they are officially approved,  each ERI will be asked to provide annual reports 
and to send them to the European Commission and the financing Member States. These reports will 
provide an overview of activities for the year in the question, as well as detail of budgetary issues, and should allow the European Commission and Member St ates to verify that the infrastructure is still 
complying with the conditions necessary for the European status. 
It should be noted that this would not necessitate much more resources than those used presently to 
follow the preparatory phase of the new research infrastructures projects under FP7. 
7.2. Evaluation 
Five years after the adoption of the legal framewo rk, an evaluation will be carried by a panel of 
experts reporting to the Member States and th e European Commission in order to assess: 
• The take-up of the legal framework (i.e. number of  new or upgraded European infrastructures using 
the framework); 
• To what extent it has managed to deliver its anticipat ed benefits, and, in particular, its ease of use, 
and how far it has helped to speed up the cr eation of European research infrastructures; 
• The need to review or adapt the legal framework. 
EN 39   EN Annexes 
1. Glossary 
2. List of ESFRI projects: future potential of ERIs 
3. List of existing intergovernmental research organisations 
4. The ESFRI roadmap for Research Infrastructures 5. Report of the Workshop on Legal forms of European research infrastructures (March 2006) 
6. Summary of the Workshop on the most appropriate legal instruments for ERIs  
(Dec 2006) 
7. Report of the Feasibility study on the creation of a legal instrument for ERIs  
(June 2007) 
8. Report of the ERA Expert Group: Developi ng World-Class Research Infrastructures for the 
European Research Area (February 2007) 
EN 40   EN Annex 1 
Glossary 
AISBL Association Internationale Sans But Lucratif 
Artemis Embedded Computing Systems - Joint Technology Initiative 
BBMRI Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure CCD Charge-Coupled Device CERN European Organisation for Nuclear Research EC European Commission / European Community CLEAN SKY Aeronautics and Air Transport - Joint Technology Initiative 
ECRI European Conference on Research Infrastructures 
ECS European Cooperative Society EEIG European Economic Interest Grouping EGTC European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation EMBL European Molecular Biology Laboratory ENIAC Nanoelectronics 2020 Initiative - Joint Technology Initiative 
ERA European Research Area 
ERI European Research Infrastructure (legal instrument) ESA European Space Agency ESFRI European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures ESO European Org. for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere 
ESRF European Synchrotron Radiation Facility 
GDP Gross Domestic Product 
GEOSS Global Earth Observation System of Systems 
IAC  Canaries Astrophysical Institute 
ILL Institut Laue-Langevin 
IMI Innovative Medicines Initiative - Joint Technology Initiative ITER International Thermonuclear Energy Reactor JTI Joint Technology Initiative 
JRC Joint Research Centre 
R&D Research and Development RPO Research Performing Organisation SET plan Strategic Energy Technology plan VAT Value Added Tax 
EN 41   EN Annex 2 
List of ESFRI projects: future potential ERIs 
Areas  Acronym  Project name  Countries participating  
CESSDA Council of European Social Science Data Archives AT, CH, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, GR, HU, IT, NL, NO, RO, SE, SI, UK 
CLARIN Common Language Resources Initiative AT, BG, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GR, HU, HR, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, 
RO, SE, UK 
DARIAH  Research Infrastructure  for the Arts and Humanities CY, DE, DK, FR, GR, HR, IE, NL, SI, UK 
ESS Survey European  Social Survey BE, BG, CH, DE, ES, ESF(INO), FR, IS, NL, NO, SE, SI, UK 
Social Sciences 
and Humanities 
SHARE Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement In Europe  AT, BE, CH, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FR, GR, IE, IL, IT, NL, PL, SE, SI, UK 
A. BOREALIS European Po lar Research Icebreaker BE, BG, DE, FI, FR, IT, NL, NO, RO, RU  
EMSO European Multidisciplin ary Seafloor Observation DE, ES, FR, GR, IE, IT, NL, NO, PT, SE, TR, UK 
EUFAR European Fleet of Airborne Research DE, ES, FI, FR, GR, IT, PL, PT, UK 
EURO ARGO Global Ocean Observing Infrastructure BG, DE, ES, FR, GR, IE, IT, NL, NO, PL, PT, UK 
IAGOS In-Service Aircraft for a Global Observing System DE, FR, UK 
ICOS Integrated Carbon Observation System BE, CZ, DK, ES, FI, FR, DE, IT, NL, SE, UK 
Environmental 
Sciences 
LIFE WATCH Infrastructures Network for Research in Biodiversity BE, ES, DE, DK, FI, FR, IT, NL, NO, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK, UK 
Energy HIPER High Power Expe rimental Research Facility CZ, DE, ES, FR, GR, IT, PL, PT, RU, UK, US 
EATRIS European Research In frastructure for Medecine DE, DK, FI, FR, IT, NL, NO, SE, UK 
ECRIN Infrastructure for Clinical Trials and Biotherapy  AT, BE, CH, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, SE, UK 
ELIXIR Upgrade of European Bi o-Informatics Infrastructure AT, BE, CH, DE, ES, FI, FR, DE, GR, HR, IS, IE, IL, IT, NL, NO, PT, SE, 
UK 
INFRAFRONTIER Infrastructure for Phenome - and Archivefrontier DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, GR, IT, PT, SE, UK 
INSTRUCT Integrated Structural Biology Infrastructure AT, BE, CH, DE, ES, FI, FR, DE, GR, HR, IS, IE, IL, IT, NL, NO, PT, SE, UK 
Biological and  
Life sciences 
BBMRI Bio-Banking and Biomolecular Resources AT, DE, EE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IS, IT, MT, NL, NO, RO, SE, UK 
ELI Extreme Light Infrastructure BG, CZ, DE, ES, FR, GR, HU, IT, LT, PL, PT, RO, UK 
ESRF Upgrade European Sy nchroton Radiation Facility AT, BE, CH, CZ, DE, DK, ES FI, FR, HU, IS, IT, NL, NO, PL, PT, SE, UK 
ESS European Spallation Source CH, DE, ES, FR, HU, IT, LV, SE, UK 
European XFEL X-Ray Free Electron Laser CH, DK, FR, ES, HU, IT, PL, RU, SE, SK, UK 
ILL Upgrade Institute Laue Langevin AT, BE, CH, CZ, ES, FR, DE, HU, IT, PL, UK, SE 
IRUVX-FEL Infrared to UV & Soft X-Rays Free Electron Lasers DE, IT, SE, UK 
Material Sciences 
PRINS Research Infrastructures for Nano-Structures BE, DE, FR, NL 
ELT European Extremely Large Telescope BE, CH, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, IT, NL, PT, SE, UK 
FAIR Facility for Antioproton and Ion Research AT, DE, ES, FI, FR, IN, IT, PL, RO, RU, SE, UK 
ILC-HiGrade International Linear Collider AT, BE, BG, CH, CZ, DE, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, NL, NO, PL, PT, SK, 
SE, UK 
KM3NET Cubic Kilometre Neutrino Telescope CY, DE, ES, FR, GR, IE, IT, NL, RO, UK 
SKA The Square Kilometre Array AU, CA, DE, ES, FR, IT, NL, UK, US, ZA 
SLHC-PP Large Hadron Collider Upgrade AT, BE, BG, CH, CZ, DE, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, NL, NO, PL, PT, SK, SE, UK 
Astronomy, 
Astrophysics, 
Nuclear Physics 
and Particle 
Physics 
SPIRAL 2 Système De Production d’Ions Radioactifs en Ligne BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FR, HU, IL, IT, NL, PL, RO, UK 
Computer and 
Data Treatment EU-HPC European High-Performance Computing Service AT, CH, DE, FI, FR, ES, GR, IT, NL, NO, PL, PT, SE, UK 
EN 42   EN Annex 3 
 
List of existing European Intergovernmental Research Organisations 
 
European 
Intergovernmental 
Research Organisations Participating countries Fo unding texts Legal form 
CERN  - European 
Organisation for Nuclear 
Research Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Czech Republic, Denmark, 
Finland, France, Germany, 
Greece, Hungary, Italy, the 
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, 
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, 
United Kingdom Intergovernmental 
Convention (1954) Intergovernmental 
Organisations 
ESO - European 
Organisation for 
Astronomical Research in 
the Southern Hemisphere  Belgium, Denmark, Finland, 
France, Germany, Italy, 
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, 
Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom Intergovernmental 
Convention (1962) Intergovernmental 
Organisations 
ILL - Institut Laue-Langevin Austria, Belgium, Czech 
Republic, France, Germany, 
Hungary, Italy, Poland, United 
Kingdom, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland Intergovernmental 
Convention (1967) Company (société 
civile) under French 
law 
EMBL - European 
Molecular Biology 
Laboratory  Austria, Belgium, Croatia, 
Denmark, Finland, France, 
Germany, Greece, Iceland, 
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, 
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, 
United Kingdom Intergovernmental 
Convention (1969) Intergovernmental 
Organisations 
ESA - European Space Agency  Austria, Belgium, Denmark, 
Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, 
Netherlands, Norway, Spain, 
Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom  Intergovernmental 
Convention (1975) Intergovernmental 
Organisations 
IAC - Canaries Astrophysical Institute Denmark, France, Germany, 
Spain, Sweden, United 
Kingdom Intergovernmental 
Convention (1979) Consorcio Público  
ESRF - European 
Synchrotron Radiation 
Facility  Austria, Belgium, Czech 
Republic, Denmark, Finland, 
France, Germany, Hungary, 
Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, 
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, 
United Kingdom Intergovernmental 
Convention (1988) Company (société 
civile) under French 
law 
 
EN 43   EN  
Annex 4 to 8  
Annex 4  The ESFRI roadmap for Research Infrastructures: 
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/esfri/ docs/esfri-roadmap-report-26092006_en.pdf  
Annex 5  Report of the Workshop on Legal forms of European research infrastructures (March 2006): 
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/p ub/esfri/docs/march-2006_en.pdf   
Annex 6  Summary of the Workshop on the most appr opriate legal instruments for ERIs (Dec 2006): 
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/esfri/do cs/conclusions_2nd_leg al_workshop_141206.pdf   
Annex 7  Report of the Feasibility study on the creation of a legal instrument for ERIs (June 2007): 
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/esfri/docs/ recommendation-specific-expert-group-2006_en.pdf   
Annex 8  Report of the ERA Expert Group: Developing World-Class Research In frastructures for the 
European Research Area (February 2007) 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructur es/pdf/ri_era-expert-group-0308_en.pdf