COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Annual Report on the progress achieved by the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint Undertakings in 2009
Date: 2011-09-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, aeronautical industry, joint venture, nanotechnology, new technology, pharmacology, renewable energy, research and development

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 14.9.2011 
SEC(2011) 1044 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Annual Report on the progress achieved by the Joint Technology Initiatives  
Joint Undertakings in 2009 

Accompanying document to the 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

{COM(2011) 557 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................ 4 

1. 

2. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6 

Progress achieved by the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) JU ........................... 6 

2.1. 

Call IMI_Call_2008_1 ................................................................................................. 9 

2.1.1.  Summary information .................................................................................................. 9 

2.1.2  Analysis of proposals submitted ................................................................................ 10 

2.1.3 

Evaluation procedure ................................................................................................. 15 

2.1.4 

Evaluation results ....................................................................................................... 16 

2.1.5  Grant Agreements signed........................................................................................... 20 

2.2. 

Call IMI_Call_2009_1 ............................................................................................... 24 

2.2.1.  Summary information ................................................................................................ 24 

2.2.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted ................................................................................ 25 

3. 

3.1 

Progress achieved by the Clean Sky JU..................................................................... 25 

Call SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 .......................................................................................... 26 

3.1.1 

Summary information ................................................................................................ 26 

3.1.2  Analysis of proposals submitted ................................................................................ 28 

3.1.3 

Evaluation procedure ................................................................................................. 30 

3.1.4 

Evaluation results ....................................................................................................... 33 

3.1.5  Grant Agreements signed........................................................................................... 35 

3.2. 

Call SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02 .......................................................................................... 37 

4. 

4.1 

Progress achieved by the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen (FCH) JU.................................. 37 

Call FCH-JU-2008-1.................................................................................................. 39 

4.1.1 

Summary information ................................................................................................ 39 

4.1.2  Analysis of proposals submitted ................................................................................ 41 

4.1.3 

Evaluation procedure ................................................................................................. 45 

4.1.4 

Evaluation results ....................................................................................................... 49 

4.1.5  Grant Agreements signed........................................................................................... 55 

4.2 

Call FCH-JU-2009-1.................................................................................................. 60 

4.2.1 

Summary information ................................................................................................ 60 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
4.2.2  Analysis of proposals submitted ................................................................................ 62 

4.2.3 

Evaluation procedure ................................................................................................. 66 

4.2.4 

Evaluation results ....................................................................................................... 68 

4.2.5  Grant Agreements signed........................................................................................... 72 

5. 

5.1 

Progress achieved by the ARTEMIS JU.................................................................... 72 

Call ARTEMIS-2008-1.............................................................................................. 72 

5.1.1  Grant Agreements signed........................................................................................... 72 

5.2 

Call ARTEMIS-2009-1.............................................................................................. 74 

5.2.1 

Summary information ................................................................................................ 74 

5.2.2  Analysis of proposals submitted ................................................................................ 75 

5.2.3 

Evaluation procedure ................................................................................................. 78 

5.2.4 

Evaluation results ....................................................................................................... 79 

5.2.5  Grant Agreements signed........................................................................................... 82 

6. 

6.1 

Progress achieved by the ENIAC JU ......................................................................... 85 

Call ENIAC-2008-1 ................................................................................................... 85 

6.1.1.  Grant Agreements signed........................................................................................... 85 

6.2 

Call ENIAC-2009-1 ................................................................................................... 87 

6.2.1 

Summary information ................................................................................................ 87 

6.2.2  Analysis of proposals submitted ................................................................................ 89 

6.2.3 

Evaluation procedure ................................................................................................. 95 

6.2.4 

Evaluation results ....................................................................................................... 96 

6.2.5  Grant Agreements signed........................................................................................... 99 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 

ABAC 

ACARE 

Accrual Based Accounting System  

Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe 

AENEAS  

Association for European Nanoelectronics Activities 

AIP 

ASP 

CfP 

DG 

EC 

ED 

EFPIA 

EFTA 

EoI 

ESR 

ETP 

EU 

FCH 

FP7 

FPP 

GA 

GAM 

GRA 

GRC 

ICT 

IER 

IMI 

ITD 

JTI 

JU 

MAIP 

MASP 

Annual Implementation Plan 

ARTEMIS Sub-Programme  

Call for Proposals 

Directorate-General 

European Commission 

Eco-Design 

European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Association 

European Free Trade Association 

Expression of Interest 

Evaluation Summary Report  

European Technology Platform  

European Union 

Fuel Cells and Hydrogen  

Seventh  Framework  Programme  of  the  European  Community  for 
research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-
2013) 

Full Project Proposal 

Grant Agreement 

Grant Agreement with Members 

Green Regional Aircraft 

Green Rotorcraft 

Information and Communications Technologies 

Individual Evaluation Report 

Innovative Medicines Initiative 

Integrated Technology Demonstrator 

Joint Technology Initiative 

Joint Undertaking 

Multi-Annual Implementation Plan 

Multi-Annual Strategic Plan 

NEW IG 

NEW Industry Grouping 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
NSRG 

PO 

PRO 

R&D  

RTD 

SAGE 

SFWA 

SGO 

SMEs 

SP 

SRA 

TE 

TEC 

TFEU 

National States Representatives Group 

Project Outline 

Public Research Organisations 

Research & Development 

Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 

Sustainable and Green Engines (SAGE) 

Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft 

Systems for Green Operations 

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises 

Sub-Programme 

Strategic Research Agenda 

Technology Evaluator 

Treaty establishing the European Community 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Each  Council  Regulation  setting  up  the  individual  Joint  Technology  Initiative  (JTI)  Joint 
Undertaking1  (JU)  requires  in  Article  11(1)  that:  "The  Commission  shall  present  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  to  the  Council  an  annual  report  on  the  progress  achieved  by  the 
[name  of  the  JTI]  Joint  Undertaking.  This  report  shall  contain  details  of  implementation 
including number  of  proposals  submitted, number of proposals selected for funding,  type of 
participants, including SMEs, and [country statistics]"2. 

This Commission Staff Working Document further describes in more detail the progress made 
by  each  JTI  JU  in  the  year  2009.  It  merges  contributions  on  all  five  JTI  JUs  and  provides 
information  on  the  timetable,  topics,  budget,  proposals  received,  evaluation  procedure, 
evaluation outcome, and grant agreements. 

In 2009, the details of implementation related to the progress made in 2008 were provided in 
the  form  of  one  annex  per  JU  attached  to  the  Commission  Staff  Working  Document3 
accompanying  the  2009  Annual  report  on  RTD  activities  (Article  190  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  (ex  Article  173  of  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European Community (TEC)). 

The details of implementation related to this 2010 report, showing the progress made in 2009, 
are presented in a stand alone format and further harmonise the information across JTI JUs in 
order to provide more visibility and to improve ease of reference. 

2. 

PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY THE INNOVATIVE MEDICINES INITIATIVE (IMI) JU 

IMI JU objectives and stakeholders 

The Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as "IMI JU") is 
a public-private partnership between the European Union (EU), represented by the European 
Commission  (EC),  and  the  European  Federation  of  Pharmaceutical  Industries  Association 
(EFPIA).  

The IMI JU is implementing the Joint Technology Initiative on IMI and is established on the 
basis of Article 187 of the TFEU (ex Article 171 of the TEC).  

1 

2 

3 

The five JTI JUs are: Innovative Medicines Initiative (supporting the development of new knowledge, 
tools  and  methods  for  new  medicines,  Council  Regulation  2008/73/EC,  http://imi.europa.eu),  Clean 
Sky  (seeking  to  increase  the  competitiveness  of  the  European  aeronautics  industry  while  reducing 
emissions  and  noise,  Council  Regulation  2008/71/EC,  http://www.cleansky.eu),  Fuel  Cells  and 
Hydrogen  (speeding  up  the  development  and  deployment  of  hydrogen  supply  and  fuel  cell 
technologies,  Council  Regulation  2008/521/EC,  http://www.fch-ju.eu),  ARTEMIS  (addressing 
embedded computing systems, Council Regulation 2008/74/EC, http://www.artemis-ju.eu), and ENIAC 
(targeting  the  very  high  level  of  miniaturisation  required  for  the  next  generation  of  nanoelectronics 
components, Council Regulation 2008/72/EC, http://www.eniac.eu).  
In  the  case of Clean  Sky, Article  11(1)  also  foresees  that "this annual  report  will  include assessment 
results of the Technology Evaluator referred to in Article 8(1) of the Statutes, as appropriate". 
SEC(2009)1380 of 22.10.2009. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The IMI JU objective is to significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the drug 
development  process,  with  the  long-term  aim  that  the  pharmaceutical  sector  produces  more 
effective and safer innovative medicines.  

The maximum EU contribution to the IMI JU covering running costs and research activities 
shall be 1,000 M€. The contribution is paid from the appropriation in the general budget of 
the  European  Union  allocated  to  the  "Health"  theme  of  the  Specific  Programme 
"Cooperation" 
the  European 
Community  for  research,  technological  development  and  demonstration  activities  (2007-
2013) (FP7).  

the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  of 

implementing 

EFPIA provides a monetary contribution to the IMI JU running costs, in an amount equal to 
the contribution of the EU. The pharmaceutical company members of EFPIA jointly fund the 
IMI  research  activities  through  contributions  in-kind  at  least  equal  to  the  financial 
contribution of the EU. 

Figure 1: Funding of the IMI JU  

The IMI JU supports collaborative pre-competitive research projects pooling resources from 
various  stakeholders  (industry,  academia,  small-  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs), 
regulatory authorities, healthcare providers, patient organisations). 

Supported projects focus on four key research priorities: better prediction of safety, efficacy 
of new medicines, better knowledge management, and strengthened education and training.  

Support  for  projects  is  granted  following  open  and  competitive  calls  for  project  proposals, 
peer review evaluation and the conclusion of grant agreements and project agreements.  

Academia,  patient  organisations  and  SMEs  are  eligible  for  IMI  JU  financial  support.  The 
pharmaceutical company members of EFPIA are not eligible for IMI JU financial support and 
participate with their own resources (contribution in-kind) in the research projects. 

Main activities in 2009 

The IMI JU became "autonomous", i.e. it gained operational capacity to implement its budget 
on 16 November 2009. Until this point, the European Commission (EC) was responsible for 
the  establishment  and  the  initial  operations  of  the  IMI  JU  in  collaboration  with  the  other 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
founding  member  (EFPIA)  in  accordance  with  Article  16  of  the  Council  Regulation 
establishing the IMI JU. 

The IMI JU Executive Director, Michel Goldman, was appointed by the Governing Board on 
10  June  2009  and  took  up  his  position  on  16  September  2009.  Until  this  date,  the  Interim 
Executive  Director  appointed  by  the  European  Commission,  Alain  Vanvossel,  fulfilled  the 
duties of Executive Director. In 2009 the IMI JU also recruited its first 12 staff members. 

The Governing Board had 3 meetings in 2009. The Scientific Committee had 3 meetings and 
the States Representatives Group – 2 meetings.  

Besides the appointment of the IMI JU Executive Director, the IMI JU Governing Board also 
approved i.a. the IMI Financial Rules, the IMI Model Grant Agreement, the list of proposals 
selected following the IMI JU first Call for Proposals, the IMI Internal Control Standards, the 
publication of the IMI second Call for Proposals, the IMI Staff Policy Plan 2010-2012 and the 
IMI Annual Implementation Plan 2009.  

The first Call for Proposals was launched in 2008. Its Stage 2 Evaluation, with the assistance 
of independent experts, and the project negotiations were processed in 2009. More details are 
provided in section 2.1. below. 

The IMI JU also launched its second Call for Proposals on 27 November 2009. 

In terms of communication activities, the IMI JU has developed a communication strategy, a 
visual identity and organised the following events: 

•  A  major  press  event  was  organised  on  14  September  2009,  with  the  participation  of 
Commissioner  Potočnik  and  the  EFPIA  President  Higgins.  It  was  attended  by  43 
journalists  and  by  members  of  the  IMI  States  Representatives  Group.  The  Executive 
Director  Michel  Goldman  was  introduced,  and  the  topics  of  the  IMI  JU  second  Call  for 
Proposals  were  presented.  This  event  generated  187  articles  in  national  and  thematic 
journals in the EU as well as in the USA and other countries. 

•  An  open  information  day  was  organised  on  17  November  2009  and  attracted  some  420 
participants. The event was open to all stakeholders and aimed at informing all interested 
parties  about  the  second  Call  for  Proposals,  which  was  launched  by  the  IMI  JU  on  27 
November 2009. 

Besides, three press releases were published in 2009, one about the selection of the Stage 2 
first call projects (18 May 2009), second – at the time when the Executive Director took up 
his position (16 September 2009), and third – at the launch of the second Call for Proposals 
(27 November 2009). 

Finally, the IMI JU has been presented at numerous national and international conferences in 
Europe  and  around  the  world  throughout  2009,  including  at  the  AAAS  Annual  Meeting  in 
Chicago,  EuroBio  in  Lille,  DIA  Innovation  Forum  in  London,  ECB-14  in  Barcelona  and 
World  Health  Summit  in  Berlin,  Bayern  Innovative  Event  and  European  Congress  of 
Immunology in Berlin. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
2.1. 

Call IMI_Call_2008_1 

2.1.1. 

Summary information 

The first Call for Proposals was published on 30 April 2008 and included 18 topics based on 
the  2008  Scientific  Priorities.  The  call  process  was  managed  under  the  responsibility  of  the 
Interim  Executive Director based on the principles of excellence, transparency,  fairness  and 
impartiality,  confidentiality,  efficiency,  speed and ethical considerations. The call process is 
detailed in section 2.1.3. below.  

The total budget for the first call included a financial contribution from the EC to the IMI JU 
of a maximum of 125.6 M€ (including 2.9 M€ EFTA contributions) and contributions in-kind 
estimated to 172 M€ by the research based companies that are members of EFPIA ("in-kind" 
meaning non-monetary contributions such as personnel, equipment, consumables, etc.). 

The timelines of the IMI JU first Call for Proposals were: 

•  Call publication:  

30 April 2008 

•  Deadline Stage 1:    

15 July 2008 

•  Evaluation Stage 1:  

August-September 2008 

•  Launch Stage 2:  

23 October 2008 

•  Deadline Stage 2:    

20 January 2009 

•  Evaluation Stage 2:  

February-May 2009 

•  Negotiation Stage 2:  

May-November 2009 

18 topics were included in the call with the following titles: 

•  Pillar I: Improving the Predictivity of Safety Evaluation 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Improve predictivity of immunogenicity 

Non-genotoxic carcinogenesis 

Expert systems for in silico toxicity prediction 

Improved predictivity of non-clinical safety evaluation 

Qualification of translational safety biomarkers 

Strengthening the monitoring of the benefit/risk of medicines 

•  Pillar II: Improving the Predictivity of Efficacy Evaluation 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

Islet cell research 

Surrogate markers for vascular endpoints 

Pain research 

New tools for the development of novel therapies in psychiatric disorders 

Neurodegenerative disorders 

Understanding severe asthma 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
13. 

COPD patient recorded outcomes 

•  Pillar IV: Education and Training 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

European Medicines Research Training Network 

Safety sciences for medicines training programme 

Pharmaceutical medicine training programme 

Integrated medicines development training programme 

Pharmacovigilance training programme 

The  whole  call  organisation  and  process  were  done  in  accordance  with  the  "IMI  Rules  for 
submission,  evaluation  and  selection  of  Expressions  of  Interest  and  Full  Project  Proposals" 
adopted by the IMI JU Governing Board on 10 October 2008.  

2.1.2 

Analysis of proposals submitted 

Stage 1: Expressions of Interest 

In total, 138 Expressions of Interest (EoI) were submitted to the IMI JU under the 18 topics, 
whereof  four  were  deemed  ineligible  (i.e.  not  submitted  before  the  deadline  or  for  lacking 
necessary documents as stated in the call).  

More than half of the EoI have been submitted in Pillar II "Efficacy Evaluation". Nearly 1/3 
of all EoI have been submitted in Pillar I "Safety Evaluation" and 14.2% have been submitted 
in Pillar IV "Education and Training" (see Figure 2). 

30,6%

Pillar I

Pillar II

Pillar IV

14,2%

55,2%

Figure 2: EoI submitted per pillar 

Close  to  1,300  applicants  participated  in  the  submitted  Expressions  of  Interest.  In  detail, 
77.3% of these participants came from academia, 17% were SMEs and 5.7% were other legal 
entities  (including  patient  organisation,  agencies  /  regulatory  organisations,  other  industry 
associations or companies (non-EFPIA) which were larger than SMEs). 

The overall participation of the different types of applicants in the Expressions of Interest is 
displayed in the table below (Table 1). 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
Non-EFPIA 

Academia 

SMEs  Others 

Participants 

1,000 

220 

74 

1,294 

Total 

1,294 

% 

77.3% 

17.0% 

5.7% 

100% 

Table 1: Typology of applicants in Stage 1 

Organisations from 36 countries have applied in the first call. The table below indicates the 
number of applicants per country and the overall participation rate. 

Country 

Total 

Participation

UK 

DE 

IT 

FR 

NL 

ES 

SE 

CH 

BE 

AT 

DK 

GR 

FI 

IL 

PT 

IE 

PL 

18.4% 

13.1% 

11.2% 

9.7% 

6.2% 

5.8% 

5.7% 

3.7% 

3.4% 

3.3% 

3.2% 

2.2% 

2.2% 

1.5% 

1.2% 

1.2% 

1.1% 

238 

170 

145 

126 

80 

75 

74 

48 

44 

43 

42 

29 

28 

19 

16 

15 

14 

11 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Total 

Participation

HU 

NO 

CZ 

EE 

US 

BG 

LV 

RO 

SK 

RS 

IS 

LT 

LU 

RU 

SI 

AU 

CY 

HR 

TR 

13 

12 

9 

9 

7 

5 

5 

5 

5 

4 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1.0% 

0.9% 

0.7% 

0.7% 

0.5% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

0.3% 

0.2% 

0.2% 

0.2% 

0.2% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

Total 

1,294 

100% 

Table 2: EoI – applicants per country in Stage 1 

Stage 2: Full Project Proposals 

A total of 18 Full Project Proposals (FPPs) – one per topic – were submitted under the Stage 
2. They were all eligible.  

In total, 490 applicants participated in these 18 FPPs (Table 3), including the EFPIA member 
companies  which  accounted  for  41.2%  of  all  applicants.  Academia  had  approximately  the 
same  percentage  of  applicants  (42.7%)  as  the  EFPIA  members,  followed  by  SMEs  (7.6%), 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
and  other  type  of  participants  (8.5%),  including  patient  organisations,  agencies  /  regulatory 
organisations, industry and associations. 

In  total,  24  EFPIA  companies  participated  in  the  FPPs  and  they  account  for  a  total  of  202 
participations.  

EFPIA 

Non-EFPIA 

Academia 

SMEs  Others 

Participants 

202 

209 

37 

42 

490 

Total 

202 

288 

% 

41.2% 

42.7% 

7.6% 

8.5% 

100% 

Table 3: Typology of applicants in Stage 2 submitted proposals 

The budget requested by Full Project Consortia in each of the three pillars was very close to 
the available budget published in the call (Figure 3). Whereas the EFPIA in-kind contribution 
was  a  bit  lower  (-8.6%)  than  the  indicative  contribution  published  in  the  call,  the  requested 
IMI JU contribution was 7.3% higher in the Full Project Proposals than the indicative budget 
mentioned in the call.  

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

55

77

55

57

54

78

61

83

14
19

16
18

IMI JU

EFPIA

123

132

173

158

Call

Proposals

Call

Proposals

Call

Proposals

Call

Proposals

Pillar I

Pillar II

Pillar IV

Total

Figure 3: Budget requested by Full Project Consortia vs. indicative budget in the call in M€ 

Among the non-EFPIA participants at this stage, SMEs requested contribution was 17.2% 
of the total amount requested to the IMI JU, which made it higher than the 15% objective of 
EU funding dedicated to SMEs in FP7 (see Table 4).  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4: Requested contribution (total and per SME)  

Among  the  non-EFPIA  participants,  organisations  from  some  22  countries  took  part  in 
Stage 2. The UK had the highest participation rate, followed by Germany and France which 
were  very  close  in  terms  of  participation.  Two  Member  States  from  the  2004  Enlargement 
(Hungary  and  Poland)  and  four  Associated  Countries  (Switzerland,  Israel,  Iceland  and 
Norway) have had participating organisations in the FPPs. See Table 5 for more details on the 
participation rate per country. 

Country 

Total 

Participation 

UK 

FR 

DE 

NL 

CH 

SE 

ES 

DK 

IT 

BE 

IE 

AT 

FI 

IL 
IS 
HU 

GR 

PL 

LU 

NO 

PT 

RS 

Non spec. 

56 

35 

37 

23 

17 

19 

19 

12 

19 

15 

6 

10 

6 

2 
1 
3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

19.4% 

12.2% 

12.8% 

8.0% 

5.9% 

6.6% 

6.6% 

4.2% 

6.6% 

5.2% 

2.1% 

3.5% 

2.1% 

0.7% 
0.3% 
1.0% 

0.3% 

0.3% 

0.3% 

0.3% 

0.7% 

0.3% 

0.3% 

Table 5: Submitted FPPs – applicants per country  

Total 

288 

100% 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
2.1.3 

Evaluation procedure  

Call process 

The IMI JU applied a two-stage call process. The first stage of the call invited Expressions of 
Interest  from  applicant  consortia  (e.g.  collaborations  between  academia,  SMEs,  patient 
organisations,  non-EFPIA  industry,  etc.)  to  be  submitted  in  response  to  the  call  topics 
included in the call. The deadline for the EoI submission was 15 July 2008. 

At the second stage, the best ranked EoI submitted in each topic of the call have been invited 
to form joint consortia with pre-established EFPIA consortia already associated with the topic, 
and to submit Full Project Proposals. The deadline for the FPPs submission was 20 January 
2009.  

Figure 4: Timeline of the IMI JU first Call for Proposals  

Evaluation Stage 1 (performed in 2008) 

The eligible Expressions of Interest were evaluated by peer review committees composed of 
at least 5 independent experts, in addition to the co-ordinator and the deputy co-ordinator of 
the  EFPIA  consortium  associated  to  the  topic  evaluated  by  the  panel.  The  evaluations  were 
conducted  via  individual  remote  evaluation  followed  by  consensus  meetings  in  Brussels.  A 
total  of  150  experts  participated  in  the  evaluations  of  the  EoI,  for  a  total  of  12  Evaluation 
Panels. 

The Expressions of Interest were evaluated against the following four criteria: 

1. 

2. 

3. 
4. 

Scientific and/or technological excellence: total score 20, threshold 14; 

Partnership  case  (i.e.  quality  and  experience  of  the  individual  partners):  total  score 
10, threshold 7; 
Quality of the applicant consortium as a whole: total score 5, no threshold; 
Quality  and  soundness  of  the  work  plan,  including  the  budget:  total  score  5,  no 
threshold. 

Preparation and launch of Stage 2 (performed in 2008) 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
Further to the Stage 1 Evaluation, preliminary discussions in view of forming a Full Project 
Consortium and preparing a Full Project Proposal were conducted between the pre-established 
EFPIA consortium in each topic and the top-ranked EoI applicant consortium in each topic. 

Following the confirmation from all 18 EFPIA consortia to proceed with the respective top-
ranked  EoI  applicant  consortium  and  jointly  form  a  Full  Project  Consortium,  the  IMI  JU 
invited the 18 Full Project Consortia to prepare a Full Project Proposal to be submitted to the 
second stage of the first call. The second stage of the call was launched on 23 October 2008 
and the Full Project Consortia were requested to submit a FPP by the deadline of 20 January 
2009. 

An  information  meeting  for  all  coordinators  was  organised  by  the  IMI  JU  on  6  November 
2008.  

Evaluation Stage 2 (performed in 2009) 

The evaluation of the 18 received Full Project Proposals, one for each of the 18 topics of the 
first  call,  was  conducted  with  independent  external  experts  as  evaluators.  The  eligible  FPPs 
were evaluated by peer review committees composed of at least 5 independent experts. In The 
same experts as in the first stage – except for the EFPIA co-ordinator and deputy co-ordinator 
who did not participate and with the  addition  of ethics experts – participated in the Stage 2 
Evaluation.  The  evaluations  were  conducted  via  individual  remote  evaluation  followed  by 
consensus meetings in Brussels. A total of 150 experts participated in the evaluations of the 
FPPs, for a total of 12 Evaluation Panels. The ethics experts were present to perform a review 
of the ethical issues in each proposal.  

The Full Project Proposals were evaluated against the following four criteria: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Scientific  and/or  technological  excellence:  Acceptable  (excellent)  /  Acceptable 
(subject  to  specified  adjustment)  /  Not  acceptable  (note:  leads  to  “overall  not 
acceptable”); 

Excellence  of  the  project  implementation  plan:  Acceptable  (excellent)  /  Acceptable 
(subject  to  specified  adjustment)  /  Not  acceptable  (note:  leads  to  “overall  not 
acceptable”); 
Consistency  with  call  topic  and  stage  1:  Acceptable  (excellent)  /  Not  acceptable 
(note: leads to “overall not acceptable”); 
Potential impact of project results: High impact / Medium impact / Low impact. 

2.1.4 

Evaluation results 

Stage 1: Expressions of Interest 

Out of the total 134 eligible EoI evaluated by the peer review committees, 56 (41.8 %) were 
favourably  evaluated,  i.e.  ranked  above  the  defined  threshold.  Ranked  lists  with  the  highest 
scoring EoI were established for each topic. The remaining non-ranked EoI had failed at least 
one threshold. Table 6 below shows that 48.8% of all EoIs have passed the threshold in Pillar 
I, 39.1% in Pillar II, and 36.8% in Pillar IV.  

The average success rate at Stage 1 was 13.3%. Pillar II "Efficacy Evaluation" received the 
most important number of EoI and therefore the success rate is the lowest –9.4% of all EoI 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
selected  for  Stage  2.  It  was  followed  by  Pillar  I  "Safety  Evaluation"  (14.6%)  and  Pillar  IV 
"Education and Training" (26.3%). 

Pillar 
number 

Pillar short 
name 

Topic number

Stage 1 – EoI 

EligibleEoI 

Above 
threshold 

Selected 
EoI for Stage 2 

I 

Safety 
Evaluation 

II 

Efficacy 
Evaluation 

IV 

Education 
and Training 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Total 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

Total 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

1 

9 

11 

9 

3 

8 

41 

8 

12 

15 

12 

16 

6 

5 

74 

6 

2 

1 

6 

4 

Total 

TOTAL 

19 

134 

Table 6: Success rate per pillar and topic in Stage 1  

Stage 2: Full Project Proposals 

1 

6 

5 

3 

2 

3 

100.0% 

66.6% 

45.4% 

33.3% 

66.6% 

37.5% 

20 

48.8% 

3 

4 

8 

7 

3 

2 

2 

37.5% 

33.3% 

53.3% 

58.3% 

18.7% 

16.6% 

40% 

29 

39.1% 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

7 

56 

33.3% 

50% 

100.0% 

33.3% 

25% 

36.8% 

41.8% 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

18 

100.0% 

11.1% 

9.1% 

11.1% 

33.3% 

12.5% 

14.6% 

12.5% 

8.3% 

6.7% 

8.3% 

6.3% 

16.7% 

20.0% 

9.4% 

16.7% 

50.0% 

100.0% 

16.7% 

25.0% 

26.3% 

13.4% 

The Stage 2 evaluation resulted in 15 proposals passing the necessary thresholds to be funded. 
Three proposals (Topics 1, 4, 17) were judged not to be of a sufficient quality for funding. As 
a consequence, three topics opened in the IMI JU first Call for Proposals were not supported 
(Table 7). 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Pillar 
number 

Pillar short 
name 

Topic number

Stage 2 – FPPs 

Eligible 
FPPs 

Above 
threshold 

Selected 
for negotiation 

I 

Safety 
Evaluation 

II 

Efficacy 
Evaluation 

IV 

Education 
and Training 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Total 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

Total 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Total 

TOTAL 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

7 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

7 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

4 

18 

15 

0% 

100% 

100% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

67% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100 % 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

0% 

80% 

83% 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

7 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

4 

15 

0% 

100% 

100% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

67% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100 % 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

0% 

80% 

83% 

Table 7: Success rate per pillar and topic in Stage 2  

In total, 395 applicants participated in these 15 Full Project Proposals (Table 8), including the 
EFPIA  member  companies  which  accounted  for  40.5%  of  all  applicants.  Academia  had 
approximately  the  same  percentage  of  applicants  (45.1%)  as  the  EFPIA  members,  followed 
by  SMEs  (6.1%)  and  other  type  of  participants  (8.3%)  including  patient  organisations, 
agencies / regulatory organisations, industry and associations. 

In total, 21 EFPIA companies participated in the FPPs and they accounted for a total of 160 
participations.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EFPIA 

Non-EFPIA 

Academia 

SMEs  Others 

Participants 

160 

178 

24 

33 

395 

Total 

160 

235 

% 

40.5% 

45.1% 

6.1% 

8.3% 

100% 

Table 8: Typology of participants in Stage 2 selected proposals 

Among  the  non-EFPIA  participants,  the  total  IMI  JU  contribution  requested  by  the  15 
selected proposals reached 109,593,433 €, including a total IMI JU contribution requested by 
SMEs of 13,994,672 €, which represents 12.77% of the total IMI JU contribution (Table 
9). The part not committed amounting to 16,039,097 € (125,632,530 € – 109,593,433 €) has 
been carried over to 2010 budget appropriation according to Article 10 of the IMI's Financial 
Rules which allow IMI to carry commitment appropriation over maximum 3 years. 

Table 9: Requested contribution (total and per SME) 

Among the non-EFPIA participants, organisations from some 22 countries were included in 
the  projects  selected  for  funding.  The  UK  had  the  highest  participation  rate,  followed  by 
Germany and France which were very similar in terms of participation. Two Member States 
from  the  2004  Enlargement  (Hungary  and  Poland)  and  five  Associated  Countries 
(Switzerland, Israel, Iceland, Serbia and Norway) have had participating organisations in the 
selected FPPs. See Table 10 for more details on the participation rates per country. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country  Total

Participation 

UK 

FR 

DE 

SE 

SP 

NL 

IT 

DK 

BE 

AT 

FI 

IE 

HU 

GR 

PL 

LU 

PT 

CH 

IS 

IL 

NO 

RS 

Non 
spec. 

48 

30 

30 

17 

17 

15 

16 

9 

9 

8 

6 

3 

3 

1 

1 

2 

1 

13 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

20.4% 

12.8% 

12.8% 

7.2% 

7.2% 

6.4% 

6.8% 

3.8% 

3.8% 

3.4% 

2.6% 

1.3% 

1.3% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

0.9% 

0.4% 

5.5% 

0.4% 

0.9% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

Total 

235 

100% 

Table 10: Selected FPPs – participants per country 

2.1.5  Grant Agreements signed 

Grant  Agreements  (GA)  were  negotiated  from  May  till  November  2009.  The  15  Grant 
Agreements  were  signed  in  2010.  No  change  occurred  in  the  list  of  proposals  proposed  for 
funding compared to the list of Grant Agreements signed.  

The table annexed below provides details on the 15 GAs proposed for funding. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 1: Table of projects for which Grant Agreements have been signed (in €) 

№ 

GA 
number 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

1 

115001  MARCAR 

2 

115002 

e-TOX 

3 

115003 

SAFE-T 

4 

115004 

PROTECT 

5 

115005 

IMIDIA 

BioMARkers and molecular 
tumor classification for non-
genotoxic CARcinogenesis 

Integrating bioinformatics and 
chemoinformatics approaches 
for the development of expert 
systems allowing the in silico 
prediction of toxicities 

Safer and Faster Evidence-
Based Translation 

Pharmacoepidemiolocal 
Research on Outcomes of 
Therapeutics by a European 
ConsorTium 

Improving beta-cell function 
and identification of diagnostic 
biomarkers for treatment 
monitoring in diabetes  

IMI JU financial 
contribution to 
beneficiaries 
eligible for IMI 
JU funding 

Additional own 
resources of 
beneficiaries 
eligible for IMI 
JU funding 

In-kind 
contributions 
from industry 
companies 
members of 
EFPIA 

Member 
States 
contribution 

Total 
contributions 

6,049,578 

2,114,051 

5,155,604 

N/A 

13,319,233 

4,737,991 

1,238,361 

6,997,915 

N/A 

12,974,267 

13,901,971 

4,113,964 

17,855,120 

N/A 

35,871,055 

11,009,715 

8,816,164 

9,984,734 

N/A 

29,810,613 

7,074,760 

3,250,920 

15,081,800 

N/A 

25,407,480 

EN 

21 

EN 

 
  
№ 

GA 
number 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

6 

115006 

SUMMIT 

Surrogate markers for Micro- 
and Macro-vascular hard 
endpoints for Innovative 
diabetes Tools 

7 

115007 

EUROPAIN  Understanding chronic pain 
and improving its treatment 

IMI JU financial 
contribution to 
beneficiaries 
eligible for IMI 
JU funding 

Additional own 
resources of 
beneficiaries 
eligible for IMI 
JU funding 

In-kind 
contributions 
from industry 
companies 
members of 
EFPIA 

Member 
States 
contribution 

Total 
contributions 

13,999,979 

4,457,229 

9,992,200 

N/A 

28,449,408 

5,999,344 

719,279 

11,513,835 

N/A 

18,232,458 

8 

115008  NEWMEDS  Novel Methods leading to 

8,211,206 

2,608,120 

13,196,110 

N/A 

24,015,436 

9 

115009 

PHARMA-
COG 

New Medications in 
Depression and Schizophrenia 

Prediction of cognitive 
properties of new drug 
candidates for 
neurodegenerative diseases in 
early clinical development 

9,658,388 

7,860,646 

10,187,989 

N/A 

27,707,023 

10 

115010  U-BI0PRED  Unbiased Biomarkers for the 

8,976,474 

1,334,568 

10,374,199 

N/A 

20,685,241 

11 

115011 

PROactive 

Prediction of Respiratory 
Disease Outcomes  

Physical Activity as a Crucial 
Patient Reported Outcome in 
COPD  

6,767,597 

1,743,482 

8,225,389 

N/A 

16,736,468 

EN 

22 

EN 

 
  
№ 

GA 
number 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

IMI JU financial 
contribution to 
beneficiaries 
eligible for IMI 
JU funding 

Additional own 
resources of 
beneficiaries 
eligible for IMI 
JU funding 

In-kind 
contributions 
from industry 
companies 
members of 
EFPIA 

Member 
States 
contribution 

Total 
contributions 

12 

115012 

SafeSciMET  European Modular Education 

2,216,405 

786,041 

3,391,459 

N/A 

6,393,905 

and Training Programme in 
Safety Sciences for Medicines 

13 

115013 

Pharma 
Train 

Pharmaceutical Medicine 
Training Programmes 

14 

115014 

EU2P 

European programme in 
Pharmacovigilance and 
Pharmacoepidemiology 

3,510,300 

3,479,725 

15 

115015 

EMTRAIN 

European Medicines Research 
Training Network  

4,000,000 

0 

0 

0 

3,143,288 

N/A 

6,653,588 

3,791,161 

N/A 

7,270,886 

3,722,663 

N/A 

7,722,663 

TOTAL 

109,593,433 

39,042,825 

132,613,466 

N/A 

281,249,724 

EN 

23 

EN 

 
  
2.2. 

Call IMI_Call_2009_1 

2.2.1. 

Summary information 

The  second  Call  for  Proposals  was  published  on  27  November  2009  and  included  9  topics 
based  on  the  2009  Scientific  Priorities.  The  call  process  was  entirely  managed  under  the 
responsibility of the autonomous IMI JU based on the principles of excellence, transparency, 
fairness and impartiality, confidentiality, efficiency, speed and ethical considerations. The call 
process has been similar to the first call.  

The total budget for the second call included a financial contribution from the EC to the IMI 
JU  of  a  maximum  of  76.8  M€  (not  taking  into  account  EFTA  contributions)  and  indicative 
contributions in-kind estimated to 79.3 M€ by the research based companies that are members 
of  EFPIA  ("in-kind"  meaning  non-monetary  contributions  such  as  personnel,  equipment, 
consumables, etc.). 

The timelines of the IMI JU second Call for Proposals were: 

•  Call publication:  

27 November 2009 

•  Deadline Stage 1:    

9 February 2010 

•  Evaluation Stage 1:  

February-March 2010 

•  Launch Stage 2:  

17 March 2010 

•  Deadline Stage 2:    

28 June 2010 

•  Evaluation Stage 2:  

July 2010 

•  Negotiation Stage 2:  

August-November 2010 

9 topics (based on the Scientific Priorities) were included in the call with the following titles: 

•  Pillar II: Improving the Predictivity of Efficacy Evaluation 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Oncology – Target Validation 

Oncology – Molecular Biomarkers 

Oncology – Imaging Biomarkers 

Infectious Diseases – Diagnostic Tools 

Inflammation – Aberrant Adaptive Immunity 

Inflammation – Translational Research 

•  Pillar III: Knowledge Management 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Knowledge Management – Drug/Disease Modelling 

Knowledge Management – Open Pharmacological Space 

Knowledge Management – Electronic Health Records (EHR) 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
The  whole  call  organisation  and  process  were  done  in  accordance  with  the  "IMI  Rules  for 
submission,  evaluation  and  selection  of  Expressions  of  Interest  and  Full  Project  Proposals" 
adopted by the IMI JU Governing Board on 26 November 2009.  

2.2.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted 

The submission and  evaluation  of  the  Expressions of  Interest  (Stage 1)  and the  Full Project 
Proposals  (Stage  2)  have  been  planned  for  2010  and  will  be  detailed  in  the  next  Annual 
Report on the progress achieved by the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint Undertakings. 

3. 

PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY THE CLEAN SKY JU 

The Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as "Clean Sky JU" or "Clean Sky") 
is a public-private partnership aiming at developing environmental technologies impacting all 
flying  segments  of  commercial  aviation  in  order  to  contribute  to  the  targets  set  by  the 
Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE) for reduction of emissions 
and noise in air transport in Europe. To implement Clean Sky, the European Commission and 
the major aeronautics stakeholders have agreed to set up a Joint Undertaking for a period up 
to 2017.  

Clean  Sky  JU  is  organised  around  6  Integrated  Technology  Demonstrators  (ITD),  which 
develop a large set of innovative technologies covering all segments of commercial aviation:  
- Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) led by Airbus and Saab; 
- Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) led by Alenia Aeronautica and EADS Casa; 
- Green Rotorcraft (GRC) led by Agusta-Westland and Eurocopter; 
- Sustainable and Green Engines (SAGE) led by Rolls-Royce and Safran; 
- Systems for Green Operations (SGO) led by Thales Avionics and Liebherr Aerospace; 

- Eco-design (ED) led by Dassault Aviation and Fraunhofer Gesellschaft. 

A Technology Evaluator (TE) led by Thales Avionics and DLR is at the core of Clean Sky JU 
with the purpose of assessing the environmental performance of the technologies developed in 
Clean Sky. 

On 16 November 2009 Clean Sky JU gained operational capacity to implement its budget and 
therefore became "autonomous". Until that point, the European Commission was responsible 
for the establishment and the initial operations of the Clean Sky JU in collaboration with the 
other private founding members and in accordance with Article 16 of the Council Regulation 
establishing the Clean Sky JU.  

The Clean Sky JU Executive Director, Eric Dautriat, was appointed by the Governing Board 
in  April  2009  and  took  up  his  position  on  15  September  2009.  Until  that  date,  the  Interim 
Executive Director appointed by the European Commission, Liam Breslin, fulfilled the duties 
of Executive Director. In 2009 the Clean Sky JU also recruited its first 10 staff members. 

The  Governing  Board  had  7  meetings  in  2009.  The  National  States  Representatives  Group 
(NSRG) had 6 meetings. The Chairman of the NSRG attended the Governing Board meetings 
as an observer. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
Two major communication events took place in 2009. An open information day was held on 
10 July 2009  to communicate information on the  first call to potential applicants. A second 
open  information  day  was  held  on  15  December  2009  with  the  purpose  of  providing 
information on the second Call for Proposals. 

Activities of the Clean Sky Members: 

Grant agreements with named beneficiaries: 

The majority of the work inside the Clean Sky JU has been carried out by its members, under 
the  form  of  Grant  Agreements  with  named  beneficiaries.  The  first  Clean  Sky  JU  Grant 
Agreements  with  its  members  (GAM)  were  negotiated  in  November  2008  and  signed  in 
November and December 2008. 7 GAMs were concluded: one for each of the 6 ITDs, and a 
supplementary  one  for  the  activities  of  the  Technology  Evaluator.  These  Grant  Agreements 
were to remain in place up to 31 December 2017. Each year, an amendment should be signed 
in  order  to  update  the  annual  description  of  work  (Annex  IB  of  the  GAM)  with  the 
corresponding JU financial contribution.  

The amendments for 2009 were signed in December 2009 for a total value of 70,614,612 €, 
handled by the Joint Undertaking following its autonomy. No new named beneficiaries joined 
the JU in 2009.  

Calls for Proposals: 

According to the Clean Sky Regulation and Statutes 25% of the EU funding to the Clean Sky 
JU are to be allocated to partners selected via Calls for Proposals. Topics are defined by each 
ITD.  They  serve  the  dual  purpose  of  widening  the  participation  in  Clean  Sky  to  further 
organisations  and  to  identify  R&D  performers  who  will  participate  in  the  mainstream 
activities of Clean Sky.  

The calls are meant to supplement the technical competences of the members by performing 
highly specific activities, which are meant to "slot in" with the overall technical work plan of 
the Clean Sky JU. For this reason, only one contract is awarded for each of the topics that are 
published, and compliance with the technical description is imperative. However, due to the 
very specific nature, it is fully possible to respond as a single entity (as allowed by the rules 
for submission for Clean Sky). 

The first Call for Proposals was launched on 15 June 2009 and 57 projects were negotiated 
successfully,  following  the  evaluation  carried  out  in  September  with  the  assistance  of 
independent experts. The second Call for Proposal was launched by the Clean Sky JU on 26 
November 2009 with a deadline in February 2010.  

3.1 

Call SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01 

3.1.1 

Summary information 

The first Call for Proposals, identified as "SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01", was published on 15 June 
2009,  consisting  of  72  topics  based  on  the  2009  programme  of  work.  The  topics  were 
distributed across 5 ITDs, as illustrated in the table below. The deadline was 31 August 2009. 
The  call  process  was  managed  by  the  newly  recruited  Clean  Sky  team,  under  the 
responsibility of the Interim Executive Director. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
Table 11: Budget per topic under the Clean Sky JU first Call for Proposals  

The  table  shows  the  budget,  which  covered  the  total  value  of  work  of  the  activities  to  be 
performed  inside  the  proposals.  This  total  budget  for  the  first  call  included  a  financial 
contribution from the EC to the Clean Sky JU of a maximum of about 26 M€, corresponding 
to the maximum funding of 75% of the call value and contributions in-kind estimated to 9 M€ 
by the applicants. 

Important budgetary note: 

The original intention was to launch the first Call for Proposals still in 2008, but due to delays 
in setting up the Clean Sky JU and reaching an agreement with the industrial members of the 
Joint Undertaking about their involvement in the call process, the launching of the call had to 
be  deferred.  In  order  to  secure  the  28.9  M€  allocated  to  the  call,  a  global  commitment  was 
made from the 2008 operational budget, as well as a separate Financing Decision. 

It was on the basis of this global commitment from 2008 that the call was eventually launched 
and  evaluated  under  the  Commission's  responsibility  (in  the  interim  phase  prior  to  the 
autonomy). The negotiation, individual commitments and signature of the Grant Agreements 
was carried out by the Clean Sky JU after the autonomy. 

It  should  be  also  noted  that  the  Annual  Implementation  Plan  2008  had  foreseen  a  Call  for 
Proposals  up  to  a  maximum  funding  of  28.9  M€,  whereas  the  finally  published  call 
represented topics up to a maximum funding level of 25.7 M€. This difference is due to the 
fact that the calls form an integral part of the overall work programme of Clean Sky, and are 
launched to bring in skills and contributions that need to harmonise with the activities of the 
named beneficiaries. 

Due to the delay in launching the call, some topics originally foreseen were no longer relevant 
at that stage and have been removed from the call text. The unspent budget remained to be re-
allocated to other topics, keeping in mind that the Clean Sky JU has the obligation to allocate 
at least 200 M€ via Calls for Proposals across its entire duration. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
3.1.2 

Analysis of proposals submitted 

A total of 216 proposals were submitted in response to the call SP1-JTI-CS-2009-01. These 
proposals  addressed  65  of  the  72  topics  open.  The  number  of  proposals  per  topic  varied 
between 1 and 10 proposals. 

Out  of  the  216  proposals  received,  42  failed  to  meet  one  or  more  of  the  eligibility  criteria 
referred to in the call and in the "Rules for participation and rules for submission of proposals 
and  the  related  evaluation,  selection  and  award  procedures".  32  of  these  proposals  were 
considered  ineligible  as  the  maximum  total  budget  related  to  the  topic  had  been  exceeded. 
Seven proposals were considered ineligible due to being completely out of scope. 

A summary of the number of topics submitted and eligible for each of the ITDs is provided in 
the table below: 

Number of topics 

Open 
in call

Covered by 
submitted 
proposals 

Covered by 
ranked 
proposals 

Submitted 
proposals 

Ineligible 
proposals 

Eligible 
proposals 

Ranked 
proposals 

34 

32 

28 

124 

21 

103 

Integrating 
Technology 
Demonstrator 
(ITD) 

Green Regional 
Aircraft (GRA) 

Green Rotorcraft 
(GRO) 

Sustainable and 
Green Engines 
(SAGE) 

Smart Fixed 
Wing Aircraft 
(SFWA) 

Systems for 
Green 
Operations 
(SGO) 

4 

8 

9 

4 

7 

7 

17 

15 

3 

7 

7 

15 

60 

12 

18 

23 

39 

3 

2 

3 

4 

65 

4 

11 

15 

9 

16 

20 

35 

27 

Total 

72 

65 

216 

33 

183 

122 

Table 12: Analysis of the submitted proposals in the first call  

In total, 405 entities applied for the call, requesting a total contribution of 59,496,432 €. Of 
the  405  entities,  182  (or  45%)  declared  a  SME  status,  with  a  total  combined  requested 
contribution of 35,641,111 € (or 60%).  

For the eligible proposals, a total funding of 41,920,565 € was requested, of which 21,236,828 
€ (50.6%) was requested by SMEs. A distribution of the requested funding across the ITDs is 
shown in the graph below: 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
Figure 5: Requested funding per ITD in the first call  

The number of eligible applicants per country is shown in the graph below: 

Num ber of participants

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

AT

BE CH CN CZ

DE

EL

ES

FI

FR HU

IT

NL

PL

PT RO SE UK

Figure 6: Participants per country in the first call  

The distribution across the type of participants is shown in the graph below: 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
Eligible proposals

Other; 2%

Research 
Establishment; 12%

Industry; 27%

Higher Education; 17%

SME; 43%

Figure 7: Typology of participants in the first call  

3.1.3 

Evaluation procedure  

The  evaluation  of  proposals  was  carried  out  at  the  Commission's  evaluation  premises  in 
Brussels during the period from 14 September 2009 to 18 September 2009 with the assistance 
of 125 experts in accordance with the procedures laid down in the call "Rules for participation 
and  rules  for  submission  of  proposals  and  the  related  evaluation,  selection  and  award 
procedures". The ITD leaders nominated 62 internal experts and the Commission selected 63 
independent  external  experts  from  the  experts'  database.  The  experts  have  been  carefully 
selected to avoid potential conflicts of interests. 

According to the Call Rules 27 topic managers, nominated by the ITDs, represented the topics 
and  gave  additional  information  on  request.  In  addition,  an  independent  observer  was 
appointed by the Commission to offer an independent advice on the conduct and fairness of 
the evaluation sessions, on the application of the evaluation criteria and on ways to improve 
processes. This observer was Mr Mark P. Pfeiffer who wrote a report on the evaluation. 

Compared  to  Calls  for  Proposals  (CfP)  in  Collaborative  Aeronautics  Research  several 
differences should be mentioned: 

•  DG  RTD.H.3  Aeronautics  ran  this  call  and  the  evaluation,  as  the  Commission  was 
responsible for the establishment and the initial operation of Clean Sky during the interim 
period  before  the  autonomy.  The  Clean  Sky  JU  staff contributed  to  the evaluation of the 
CfP. 

•  In this Clean Sky call very specific topics related to 5 ITD platforms have been defined. 

Only one eligible proposal per topic would have to be funded. 

•  While  FP7  aeronautics  calls  define  funding  limits  by  instruments,  the  Clean  Sky  CfP 

define maximum topic budget values. 

•  While FP7 aeronautics CfPs have different funding schemes, the Clean Sky CfP had only 

one uniform funding scheme for all activities, areas and topics. 

•  The  proposals  to  Clean  Sky  CfP  were  evaluated  by  a  topic  specific  evaluation  panel 
consisting of at least 4 experts. The evaluation panels were composed of external experts 
nominated  by  the  Commission,  and  of  internal  experts  nominated  by  the  ITDs.  The 
composition of the evaluation panels was balanced between internal and external experts. 
The evaluation panels in FP7 aeronautics CfPs consist of external experts only. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
•  Each topic was represented by a topic manager who could give technical clarifications on 

request. 

•  The number of evaluation criteria has been increased from 3 in FP7 aeronautics CfPs to 6 

in Clean Sky CfPs. 

Evaluation of proposals 

At the start of the evaluation, all experts, topic managers and ITD representatives were briefed 
on  the  process  and  procedures,  as  well  as  on  the  applicable  evaluation  criteria  and  the 
objectives of the research area under consideration. 

The confidentiality requirements of the whole process including conflict of interests and the 
respective  obligations  of  the  experts  were  emphasised  during  the  briefing.  All  experts  got 
access to the call-specific documentation with respect to the call text, the rules, etc. prior to 
the briefing. 

Each  proposal  was  assessed  independently  by  at  least  2  internal  experts  nominated  by  the 
ITDs and at least 2 independent external experts chosen by the Commission from the pool of 
experts taking part in this evaluation. 

Eligibility criteria 

In line with the Clean Sky "Rules for participation and rules for submission of proposals and 
the related evaluation, selection and award procedures", the following eligibility criteria were 
applied to all proposals submitted in this call. 

Proposals  had  to  fulfil  all  of  the  eligibility  criteria  if  they  must  have  been  retained  for 
evaluation. These criteria were rigorously applied. A proposal was only considered eligible if 
it met all of the following conditions: 

•  Receipt of proposal by the Commission before the deadline date and time established in the 

call; 

•  The  proposal  was  in  scope  with  the  topic  and  addressed  fully  this  topic;  a  proposal  was 

only deemed ineligible on grounds of "scope" in clear-cut cases; 

•  The proposal total budget did not exceed the maximum topic total budget specified in the 

call text; 

•  The proposal contained both part A and part B, and both parts were complete. 

Additionally, the Clean Sky "Rules for participation and rules for submission of proposals and 
the  related  evaluation,  selection  and  award  procedures"  specified  which  legal  entities  were 
allowed to apply to the call. 

Further eligibility criteria have not been specified in the call text.  

Evaluation criteria, scoring, thresholds 

All  eligible  proposals  have  been  evaluated  according  to  the  six  pre-determined  evaluation 
criteria set out in subsection 4.6 of the Call Rules mentioned below: 

•  Criterion 1: Technical excellence; 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
•  Criterion 2: Innovative character; 

•  Criterion 3: Compliance  with 

the  Call  for  Proposals  specification  and 

timetable 

(relevance); 

•  Criterion 4: Adequacy  and  quality  of 

respondent's 

resources,  management  and 

implementation capabilities and track record; 

•  Criterion 5: Appropriateness  and  efficient  allocation  of  the  resources  to  be  committed 

(budget, staff, equipment); 

•  Criterion 6: Contribution to the European competitiveness. 

Thresholds 

Thresholds  were  set  for  each  of  the  criteria  on  a  score  of  3  out  of  5  points.  Any  proposal 
failing to achieve all threshold scores has been rejected. In addition, an overall threshold was 
set on a score of 20 out of 30 points. The thresholds to be applied to each criterion as well as 
the overall threshold have been announced in the call text. 

Individual evaluation of proposals 

The topic specific evaluation panels consisted of at least 2 internal experts nominated by the 
ITDs and at least 2 independent external experts chosen by the Commission from the pool of 
experts taking part in this evaluation. 65 evaluation panels have been defined to evaluate 216 
proposals which were assigned to 65 of the open 72 topics. 

Each proposal was evaluated against the applicable criteria independently. The experts filled 
in  and  signed  Individual  Evaluation  Reports  (IER)  giving  scores  and  comments  on  each 
evaluation criterion. 

Consensus 

For each proposal a consensus meeting was convened. The outcome of the consensus meeting 
has been recorded in a consensus report. 

The consensus report reflected the common view of the experts on a particular proposal as a 
result  of  their  consensus  meeting.  It  has  been  the  basis  for  the  Evaluation  Summary  Report 
(ESR) of the proposal. 

Topic review 

Finally,  the  panels  have  been  convened  for  each  topic.  The  evaluators  reconsidered  and 
reviewed  their  work  at  the  end  of  their  evaluation  week  and  provided  their  input  to  the 
appropriate final ranking for each topic. 

They  produced  ranking  lists  according  to  the  quality  of  the  proposal(s)  related  to  a  specific 
topic  in  order  to  define  the  winning  proposal  and  –  if  possible  –  a  ranked  list  serving  as  a 
reserve list in case of later failure of the winning coordinator during the negotiation phase. 

This  has  been  the  final  step  involving  the  experts.  It  allowed  them  to  formulate  their 
recommendations to the Commission having had an overview of the results of the consensus 
step. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
The main task of these panels was to examine and to compare the draft ESRs in a given topic, 
to check on the consistency of the marks applied during the consensus discussions and, where 
necessary, propose a new set of ESR scores. 

The  tasks  of  the  panels  also  included  recommending  a  priority  order  of  proposals  to  be 
retained for a potential reserve list; this would have included a decision on priority order of 
those  proposals  with  the  same  scores.  The  case  of  two  equally-scored  top  ranked  proposals 
did not occur hence no priority order was set. 

The panels were chaired by a representative of the Commission, supported by the related topic 
manager.  They  ensured  fair  and  equal  treatment  of  the  proposals  in  the  panel  discussions. 
Panel  rapporteurs  have  been  appointed  to  record  the  panel’s  advice  and  to  draft  the  panel 
report.  

Topic evaluation report  

The outcome of each topic review, which is the analogue to the panel review known in FP7 
calls, was a report including the following: 

•  An ESR for each proposal, including comments and scores, taking account of any hearings 

where applicable; 

•  A list of proposals passing all thresholds, along with a final score for each proposal passing 
the thresholds and the panel recommendations for priority order (no need for priority order 
as described above); 

•  A list of evaluated proposals having failed one or more thresholds; 

•  A list of any proposals having been found ineligible during the evaluation; 

•  A summary of any recommendations of the panel. 

3.1.4 

Evaluation results 

Overall, out of a total of 174 eligible proposals (average 2.5 proposals per topic) 118 (68 %) 
proposals  (average  1.7  per  topic)  passed  all  thresholds  set  out  in  the  call.  Proposals  were 
selected  for  negotiations  covering  60  of  the  72  topics  launched.  Topics  not  covered  by  a 
successful proposal could be reconsidered in subsequent calls. As indicated above, only one 
proposal per topic was proposed for funding. 

The average number of participants in the proposals proposed for funding was 2. About 50% 
of  the  proposals  proposed  for  funding  involved  only  one  participant.  This  is  linked  to  the 
particular features of the Clean Sky topics, which involve a precise description of work, well 
focused  on  a  contribution  to  the  demonstrators  (models,  innovative  equipment  or  material, 
innovative test, etc.). 

The  number  of  participations  in  proposals  proposed  for  funding  by  country  is  shown  in  the 
following chart: 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
F
i
g
u
r
e
9
:
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
p
e
r

c
o
u
n
t
r
y

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

UK - United Kingdom

ES - Spain

FR - France

DE - Germany

BE - Belgium

IT - Italy

PT - Portugal

SE - Sweden

EL - Greece

NL - Netherlands

AT - Austria

CH - Switzerland

CZ - Czech Republic

PL - Poland

RO - Romania

IL - Israel

RU - Russian Federation

FI - Finland

HU - Hungary

CN - China (People's Republic of)

E
N

3
4

E
N

Requested Participants' Funding [M EUR]

0
,
0

0
,
5

1
,
0

1
,
5

2
,
0

2
,
5

3
,
0

3
,
5

N
u
m
b
e
r

1
5

2
0

0

5

1
0

3
0

2
5

2
5

2
7

1
2

1
1

1
0

9

6

6

6

4

2

2

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

F
i
g
u
r
e
8
:

N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s

i
n
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
s

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

f
o
r

f
u
n
d
i
n
g

p
e
r

c
o
u
n
t
r
y

T
h
e

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

b
u
d
g
e
t

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
a
c
r
o
s
s

M

e
m
b
e
r
S
t
a
t
e
s

i
s

g
i
v
e
n
i
n
t
h
e

c
h
a
r
t
b
e
l
o
w

:

C
o
u
n
t
r
y

FR - France

UK - United Kingdom

DE - Germany

ES - Spain

PT - Portugal

BE - Belgium

IT - Italy

NL - Netherlands

SE - Sweden

EL - Greece

PL - Poland

AT - Austria

CH - Switzerland

CZ - Czech Republic

CN - China (People's Republic of)

RO - Romania

IL - Israel

RU - Russian Federation

FI - Finland

HU - Hungary

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Among the successful projects proposed for funding selected in this first call: 

–  Out of 116 participants, 42 declared a SME status (36%); 

–  Out of the 14 M€ total budget, 5.6 M€ were for SMEs (40%). 

The distribution across type of entity of proposals proposed for funding is given in the chart 
below: 

Other; 2%

Research 
Establishment; 13%

Industry; 35%

Higher Education; 14%

SME; 37%

Figure 10: Breakdown of the total number of participants involved in the proposals proposed 
for funding by type of organisation 

3.1.5  Grant Agreements signed 

The  evaluations  led  to  60  proposals  proposed  for  funding  which  were  therefore  moved 
forward in order to initiate negotiations. However, it became clear that 3 proposals would not 
complete negotiations: 

•  For one proposal, the single participant informed the JU that they were no longer intending 

to proceed with the negotiation of the contract; 

•  For  two  proposals,  the  invitation  for  negotiation  was  sent  by  the  Clean  Sky  JU  on  2 
October 2009. During the checks according to the internal legal and financial procedures, 
one  organisation  (only  participant  in  both  proposals),  has  been  found  to  be  an  "affiliate" 
entity of an ITD Member, being under the same direct or indirect control as ITD System 
for  Green  Operations  Members.  According  to  the  rules  for  participation,  an  affiliate  of  a 
member cannot participate in a Call for Proposals from its ITD. For this reason, the Clean 
Sky JU has consequently decided to terminate the negotiations. 

The  negotiations  with  the  remaining  57  projects  selected  for  funding  in  the  first  Call  for 
Proposals started in early October 2009 and were concluded by the end of November 2009. 
Grant  Agreements  were  sent  to  proposal  coordinators  by  the  JU  within  15  December  2009 
and 70% of the Grant Agreements were countersigned by the JU within 2009.  

The  table  annexed  below  shows  the  57  proposals,  for  which  negotiations  have  been 
successfully concluded. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 2: Table of successfully negotiated projects from the first Call for Proposals 

Topic
GRA-01-001
GRA-01-002
GRA-01-003
GRA-01-004
GRA-01-005
GRA-01-006
GRA-01-007
GRA-01-008

GRA-01-009
GRA-01-010
GRA-01-011

GRA-01-012

GRA-01-013
GRA-01-015
GRA-01-017

GRA-01-018
GRA-01-019
GRA-01-020
GRA-01-021
GRA-02-001

GRA-02-003
GRA-02-004

GRA-03-001
GRA-04-001
GRA-05-001
GRA-05-002
GRA-05-003
GRA-05-004
GRC-01-001
GRC-05-001
GRC-05-002
SAG-02-001
SAG-02-002
SAG-05-001
SAG-05-003
SAG-05-004
SAG-05-005

SAG-05-006
SFW-01-001
SFW-01-002
SFW-01-003
SFW-02-001
SFW-02-002
SFW-02-004
SFW-02-005
SGO-02-001
SGO-02-003
SGO-02-004
SGO-02-005
SGO-02-006
SGO-02-008
SGO-03-001
SGO-03-002
SGO-03-003
SGO-03-004
SGO-03-005
SGO-03-006

ACRONYM

WEMACS
FOSAS
InFlightFOS
SMACMP
SMASH
SENCES
THERMOCS
CNMD

Intelli-SHM
INDUCER
PASSS

Prop
Nbr
255877
255865
255768

252045

255741
255837
255755
252044

255734
255770
255666

255820

255797
255783

251789
255670
255806

255711
255776
255724
255760
255714

RemFOS
Sandwich foam 
cores
MAPS
FusDesOpt
AU-BB/EMI 
sensor nod
AirWISE
OPTIMUMS
ORGANOCS
ALONOCO
VELOCIRAPTO
R
ADOCHA
SYS-
ARCHITECTUR
255795
E GRA
GRA3M
255772
AERODESIGN 255851
255860
CAA-NLH
255689
FRARS
255779
ROM&O
255774
MulticompAct
251798
EMICOPTER
255886
GARDEN
255762
OREAT
255034
ABAG
255853
ThetaGen
255909
ActiPPTSens
255848
COTSTEM
255749
HIGHTECS
HP-SMART 
EMA
255819
AFC-TEFL-HLC 255739
255732
OPTLAM
255752
LEBox
DINNO-CROR 255878
255863
DECROR
255782
IDOHAP
255731
GKN GBSSD
255881
ACOC-TH
255866
EHWAZ
255780
SONEWIPS
255742
SIPAL
255656
SLD_scoop
255730
ASE-TB
TURBOGAS
255674
FLIGHT-NOISE 255750
255718
COMET
255875
CARING
255907
MAS_Lab
255740
SIMET

Project total costs 
(€)

CS total contribution 
(€)

74.971  
159.900  
239.846  
149.700  
417.130  
549.596  
99.000  
249.600  

297.727  
200.000  
78.000  

79.998  

77.000  
44.566  
99.635  

58.345  
115.312  
30.000  
59.999  
300.000  

145.682  
200.000  

169.096  
49.820  
189.395  
100.000  
49.860  
59.945  
300.000  
399.391  
586.770  
766.700  
598.300  
871.504  
799.544  
761.299  
1.408.360  

1.917.111  
299.990  
200.000  
298.663  
400.000  
194.150  
180.000  
250.000  
299.284  
398.388  
1.475.000  
498.041  
173.026  
250.977  
297.360  
329.924  
99.850  
953.760  
500.000  
599.831  

42.898  
119.925  
169.896  
74.850  
312.847  
367.572  
74.250  
124.800  

223.295  
149.998  
39.000  

59.998  

41.073  
33.425  
74.726  

43.759  
86.483  
22.499  
44.999  
227.500  

109.261  
150.000  

126.822  
24.910  
115.630  
75.000  
37.395  
44.959  
206.250  
299.543  
370.231  
388.601  
299.150  
474.971  
599.658  
570.974  
704.180  

1.160.164  
224.993  
150.000  
223.997  
305.867  
145.612  
135.000  
125.000  
224.463  
199.194  
737.500  
266.091  
129.770  
183.908  
218.751  
247.443  
74.889  
647.334  
250.000  
449.873  

20.451.347 

13.031.176 

Funding 
percentage
57,2%
75,0%
70,8%
50,0%
75,0%
66,9%
75,0%
50,0%

75,0%
75,0%
50,0%

75,0%

53,3%
75,0%
75,0%

75,0%
75,0%
75,0%
75,0%
75,8%

75,0%
75,0%

75,0%
50,0%
61,1%
75,0%
75,0%
75,0%
68,8%
75,0%
63,1%
50,7%
50,0%
54,5%
75,0%
75,0%
50,0%

60,5%
75,0%
75,0%
75,0%
76,5%
75,0%
75,0%
50,0%
75,0%
50,0%
50,0%
53,4%
75,0%
73,3%
73,6%
75,0%
75,0%
67,9%
50,0%
75,0%
63,7%  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
3.2. 

Call SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02 

The  second  Call  for  Proposals  was  published  on  26  November  2009  with  a  closing  date  23 
February  2010.  The  evaluation  of  the  proposals  took  place  on  22-26  March  2010.  The  call 
was  open  for  24  topics  covering  activities  within  all  ITDs  except  for  Smart  Fixed  Wing 
Aircraft (SFWA) and Technology Evaluator (TE). The full call process has been managed by 
the autonomous Clean Sky JU, according to the same principles of excellence, transparency, 
fairness and impartiality, confidentiality, efficiency, speed and ethical considerations applied 
by the Commission in the first call.  

The total budget for the second call included a financial contribution from the EC to the Clean 
Sky JU of a maximum of 16 M€, following the same scheme of a maximum contribution of 
75% to the call value of 3.3 M€. This call was entirely financed from the 2009 budget. 

The  final  published  value  was  for  a  total  scope  of  work  of  11,170,000  €  and  a  maximum 
funding of 8,377,500 €. 

The difference between the originally forecasted value and the finally allocated amount was 
due to the fact that the calls formed an integral part of the overall work programme of Clean 
Sky, and were launched to bring in skills and contributions that needed to harmonise with the 
activities of the named beneficiaries. 

Some of the originally foreseen topics were finally not launched, due to reasons of relevance 
or quality of the topic descriptions. The unspent budget remained to be re-allocated to other 
topics (including re-launches of unanswered ones), keeping in mind that the Clean Sky JU has 
the obligation to allocate at least 200 M€ via Calls for Proposals across its entire duration. 

4. 

PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY THE FUEL CELLS AND HYDROGEN (FCH) JU 

The Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative (FCH JTI) is a novel public-private 
partnership  supporting  research,  technological  development  and  demonstration  (RTD) 
activities in fuel cell and hydrogen energy technologies in Europe4. Its aim is to accelerate the 
market introduction of these technologies realising their potential as a vector in a carbon-lean 
energy system.  

FCH  JTI  brings  together  businesses  representing  the  entire  supply  chain  for  FCH 
technologies, the European Commission and research institutions. A coordinated approach is 
proposed  in  order  to  pull  together  resources  and  coordinate  RTD  efforts  of  different 
stakeholders in order to identify and overcome technical and non-technical barriers to market-
introduction  of  FCH  technologies.  In  order  to  meet  the  objective  of  market  deployment, 
industry  has  a  lead  role  in  defining  RTD  priorities  and  timelines,  in  consultation  with  the 
European Commission and the research community. 

To  implement  the  JTI,  the  founding  members,  the  European  Union  and  the  NEW  Industry 
Grouping (NEW IG), have agreed to set up a Joint Undertaking (JU) as a legal entity for the 

4 

Europe in this context means: Member States and countries associated to the 7th Framework Programme 
(FP7) i.e. Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, 
Israel, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey.  

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
period up to 2017, which the N.ERGHY Research Grouping joined as the third member as of 
14 July 2008. 

The  objective  of  the  Fuel  Cells  and  Hydrogen  Joint  Undertaking  (hereinafter  referred  to  as 
"FCH JU") shall be achieved through the support of research, technological development and 
demonstration activities that pool resources from the public and private sectors, through open 
and competitive Calls for Proposals. Calls for Proposals are published annually in the period 
of 2008 to 2013 and in the period of 2014 to 2017 the projects that are still running will be 
brought to conclusion. 

Until the FCH JU had its full operational capacity to implement its own budget, the European 
Commission  was  responsible  for  the  establishment  and  initial  operation  of  the  FCH  JU  in 
collaboration  with  its  other  members,  and  with  the  involvement  of  the  competent  bodies  in 
accordance with Article 16 of the Council Regulation. The FCH JU gained its financial and 
operational autonomy on 15 November 2010. 

In  2009,  FCH  JU  had  two  main  objectives.  Firstly,  to  prepare  the  legal  and  financial 
framework  and  to  procure  the  necessary  services  and  infrastructure  to  prepare  for  the 
"autonomy" of the FCH JU in 2010. Secondly, to execute the operational budget of the FCH 
JU by the conclusion of Grant Agreements for projects selected in the first Call for Proposals 
of 2008 and by launching of the 2009 Call for Proposals. 

All  bodies  described  in  the  Regulation  setting  up  the  FCH  JU  were  established  and  fully 
active  from  January  2009  on.  As  in  2009  the  FCH  JU  was  not  "autonomous",  the  Interim 
Executive Director, Mr Philippe Vannson, supported by an Interim Programme Office, was in 
charge of the daily management of FCH JU under the auspices of the European Commission. 
He was also supported by Commission staff5.  

Important  progress  was  made  during  the  year  towards  reaching  autonomous  status  for  the 
FCH JU.  

With regards to staffing, 18 vacancy notices for Temporary Agent positions were published in 
2009, including the one of the Executive Director. A majority of the posts have been filled in 
2010  including  the  Executive  Director  Mr  Bert  De  Colvenaer,  who  took  office  on  1 
September  2010.  The  FCH  JU  moved  to  its  temporary  premises  at  the  Covent  Garden 
building  in  December  2009.  The  FCH  JU  office  was  expected  to  move  to  its  permanent 
offices, together with the other four JTIs, in early 2011. An IT-assisted accounting system, the 
Accrual Based Accounting System  (ABAC), was chosen and has been adapted for FCH JU 
needs.  

On  the  operational  side,  the  Governing  Board  adopted  on  15  May  2009  the  Multi-Annual 
Implementation Plan (MAIP) of the FCH JU, defining the scientific priorities for the duration 
of the programme. The MAIP will be translated into Annual Implementation Plans (AIP) each 
year, which set out the detailed topics for Calls for Proposals. The FCH JU Grant Agreement, 
governing  the  relationship  between  the  FCH  JU  and  beneficiaries  participating  in  projects, 
was also adopted on the same date.  

Key communication activities in 2009 included the launching of the FCH JU website in May 
and  the  organisation  of  the  Stakeholders  General  Assembly  2009  in  October.  The  FCH  JU 

5 

In accordance with Art. 16 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 521/2008 of 30 May 2008.  

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
was  also  presented  in  various  events  in  Europe  and  further  afield.  Cooperation  with  key 
stakeholders,  in  particular  European  Regions,  Member  States'  programmes  as  well  as 
international partners was actively developed. 

Two  Calls  for  Proposals  were  evaluated  in  2009,  the  details  of  which  are  outlined  in  the 
sections below. The first Call for Proposals, launched in 2008, was brought to conclusion in 
December 2009. The evaluation of submitted projects was carried out in January-February by 
19  independent  experts.  An  independent  observer  monitored  that  the  procedure  was  carried 
out  in  a  fair,  impartial  and  confidential  manner.  On  15  May  2009  the  Governing  Board 
approved  a  list  of  16  project  proposals  for  negotiations,  which  started  on  5  June  2009. 
Negotiations  were  concluded  and,  following  the  approval  of  the  Governing  Board,  Grant 
Agreements  were  signed  for  the  funding  of  16  projects  in  December.  Of  the  preliminary 
budget of 28.8 M€, 27.2 M€ were committed to these projects6. Pre-financing was paid out to 
the selected beneficiaries by 31 December.  

The Annual Implementation Plan 2009, setting out 29 topics for the Call for Proposals of that 
year,  was  adopted  on  15  May  and  the  corresponding  Call,  the  second  for  the  FCH  JU,  was 
published  on  2  July  with  a  preliminary  budget  for  FCH  JU  contribution  of  71.3  M€.  The 
deadline  for  submission  of  proposals  was  15  October  and  the  evaluations  took  place  in 
November  20097.  Out  of  50  proposals  submitted  by  the  deadline,  31  passed  the  evaluation 
thresholds.  The  list  of  projects  to  enter  into  negotiations  was  approved  by  the  Governing 
Board in the first quarter of 2010. 

4.1 

Call FCH-JU-2008-1 

4.1.1 

Summary information 

Call  FCH-JU-2008-1  was  published  on  8  October  2008.  The  deadline  for  submission  of 
proposals was 15 January 2009. The 15 topics addressed by this call are illustrated in the table 
below: 

№  Topic 

Scope 

Area Transportation & Refuelling Infrastructure 

Indicative 
FCH JU 
funding 
(in M€) 

8.9 

Large-scale 
demonstration of 
road vehicles and 
refuelling 
infrastructure  

1 

Demonstration  of  second-generation  hydrogen  fuelled 
vehicles  fleets  with  improved  durability,  robustness, 
reliability  and  efficiency  in  order  to  prove  application 
readiness  of  the  technology;  demonstrate  the  feasibility 
of  infrastructure  for  daily  use;  demonstration  trials  are 
awareness, 
supported 
environmental  and  social  assessment,  and  certification 
requirements. 

activities 

public 

by 

on 

6 

7 

The  amounts  include  2.4%  EFTA  contributions  from  countries  associated  to  the  7th  Framework 
Programme.  
Remote evaluations 3-13 November; Consensus and panel meetings 16-20 November 2009.  

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Indicative 
FCH JU 
funding 
(in M€) 

№  Topic 

Scope 

2 

3 

4 

European cluster for 
large-scale vehicle 
demonstration – 
Feasibility study 

large-scale  demonstration  of 
Feasibility  study  on 
second-generation  hydrogen  fuelled  vehicles  fleets, 
including the development of criteria and framework for 
the selection of candidate regions. 

European fuel cell 
stack cluster – 
Feasibility study 

Assessment  of  the  potentialities  for  the  formation  of  a 
European  cluster  of  Industry,  SMEs  and  research 
organisations  for  the  establishment  of  a  European 
transportation stack industry. 

70MPa compressed 
H2 onboard storage 

Research  and  development  to  enable  the  application 
readiness  of  70MPa  on  board  H2  storage  technology, 
functional  performance  and  cost 
with 
reduction.  

improved 

Area Hydrogen Production, Storage & Distribution  

2.9 

Development of low 
temperature, high 
efficiency 
electrolyser based on 
PEM technology 

Development of low 
temperature, high 
efficiency 
electrolyser based on 
alkaline technology 

Development  activities  on  low  cost,  low  temperature 
electrolysers  based  on  PEM  technologies,  including 
prototyping and testing; demonstration of the application 
and production readiness. 

Development  activities  on  low  cost,  low  temperature 
electrolysers  based  on  alkaline  technologies,  including 
prototyping and testing; demonstration of the application 
and production readiness. 

Thermo-chemical 
processes with solar 
heat sources 

RTD  activities  on  thermo-chemical  processes  coupled 
with solar including research on high temperature water 
decomposition processes  

5 

6 

7 

Area Stationary Power Generation & CHP 

12.0 

8 

9 

10 

Operation 
diagnostics and 
control for stationary 
power applications 

Component and 
system improvement 
for stationary power 
applications 

Degradation & 
lifetime 
fundamentals for 
stationary power 
applications 

Development  of  control  and  diagnostics  tools  for 
including  degradation  and 
operational  performance 
lifetime 
SOFC 
technologies). 

(PEMFC,  MCFC, 

prediction 

Development  activities  on  component  and  system  in 
order  to  meet  application-  relevant  functional  and 
performance 
SOFC 
technologies). 

(PEMFC,  MCFC, 

criteria 

Research  on  factors  impacting  the  degradation  and 
lifetime 
PEMFC,  MCFC 
technologies); exploration of synergies with back up and 
UPS units. 

(SOFC, 

stacks 

of 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
№  Topic 

Scope 

Area Early Markets  

Indicative 
FCH JU 
funding 
(in M€) 

2.6 

11 

12 

Demonstration of 
portable generators, 
backup and UPS 
power systems 

Demonstration  of  application  readiness  with  respect  to 
cost-competitiveness,  lifetime,  logistics,  environmental 
performance  of  portable  generators,  back-up  and  UPS-
systems.  

Novel approaches 
for fuel supply 
technology for 
portable and micro 
fuel cell systems 

Development  of  new  fuelling  systems  for  portable  and 
the 
micro  Fuel  Cells, 
requested 
logistical  and 
storage 
distribution requirements. 

including  associated  RCS, 

solutions, 

fuel 

Area Cross-cutting Issues  

1.7 

13 

Planning of socio-
economic activities 

Comprehensive  state  of  the  art  analysis  of  socio–
economic  activities,  building  and  consolidating  from 
previous  EC  co-financed  projects;  establishment  of  a 
framework for further socio–economic activities.  

14 

15 

Development of a 
framework for 
Technology 
Monitoring and 
Assessments (TMA)  

a 

of 

comprehensive 

Development 
technology 
monitoring  and  assessment  (TMA)  framework  to  be 
used  by  the  FCH  JU  for  assessing  progress  towards 
achieving  both  FCH  JU  objectives  and  vis-à-vis  major 
external developments.  

Development of a 
framework for Life 
Cycle Assessment 
(LCA) 

for 
Development  of  dedicated  practice  guidance 
hydrogen and fuel cell technologies to be integrated with 
the  International  Reference  Life  Cycle  Data  System 
(ILCD) Handbook on LCA  

Total indicative FCH JU funding  

28.1 

Table 13: Topics addressed in the call FCH-JU-2008-1  

The total indicative budget for the call of 28.1 M€ from the FCH JU was expected to be at 
least matched by the in-kind contributions from the industry participants in projects.  

4.1.2 

Analysis of proposals submitted 

On  receipt  by  the  FCH  JU,  proposals  were  registered  and  acknowledged  and  their  contents 
entered into a database to support the evaluation process. Eligibility criteria for each proposal 
were also checked by FCH JU staff before the evaluation began.  

Table 14 below illustrates the number of proposals submitted by topic and those eligible for 
evaluation.  

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Topic/Application Area 

Demonstration of hydrogen fuelled road 
vehicles and refuelling infrastructure 

Preparation for large-scale vehicle 
demonstrations in Europe 

European fuel cell stack cluster 

Compressed hydrogen onboard storage 

Transportation and Refuelling 
Infrastructure (Total) 

Efficient PEM electrolysers 

Efficient alkaline electrolysers 

Water decomposition with solar heat sources 

Hydrogen Production & Distribution 
(Total) 

Operation diagnostics and control for 
stationary applications 

Component and system improvement for 
stationary applications 

Degradation and lifetime fundamentals 

Stationary Power Generation & CHP 

Portable generators, backup and UPS power 
systems 

Fuel supply technology for portable and 
micro Fuel Cells 

Early Markets (Total) 

Planning of socio-economic activities 

Technology monitoring and assessment 
(TMA) 

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 

Cross-cutting issues (Total) 

TOTAL 

Total 
number of 
proposals 
received 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

3 

2 

2 

7 

1 

3 

11 

15 

2 

3 

5 

1 

0 

0 

1 

32 

Number of 
proposals found 
ineligible 

Number of 
proposals 
evaluated 

% 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

3 

2 

2 

7 

1 

3 

11 

15 

2 

3 

5 

1 

0 

0 

1 

32 

% 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

0 

0 

100 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Table 14: Proposals submitted and eligible for evaluation by topic  

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
 
Participation 

SMEs 

Proposals evaluated 

Funding scheme 

Total number of 
participants  

FCH requested 
contribution (in M€) 

Total number of SMEs 

FCH requested contribution  
(in M€) 

Collaborative Projects 

Support Actions 

Total 

211 

32 

243 

66.37 

2.07 

68.44 

73 

5 

78 

% 

35% 

16% 

32% 

21.65 

0.22 

21.87 

% 

33% 

11% 

32% 

Table 15: Total funding requested by all proposals eligible for evaluation and total funding requested by their SMEs partners  

UNIVERSITIES
20%

RESEARCH
32%

RESEARCH
30%

UNIVERSITIES
23%

OTHERS
3%

INDUSTRY
45%

Budget breakdown 

(Total requested grant = 68.44 M€) 

OTHERS
4%

INDUSTRY
43%

Participant organisation type 

(Number of participants = 243) 

Figure 11: Breakdown of the total number of participants involved in the proposals eligible for evaluation by type of organisation 

EN 

43 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 16: Breakdown of the total number of participants involved in the proposals eligible for 
evaluation by country 

Member 
States 

Number of 
proposals 

Requested 
Grant (M€) 

Associated 
Countries 

Number of 
proposals 

Requested 
Grant (M€) 

Croatia 

Iceland 

Norway 

Switzerland 

Turkey 

Total 

1 

1 

9 

17 

10 

38 

0.20 

0.06 

3.87 

3.61 

2.79 

10.52 

Third 
Countries 

Number of 
proposals 

Requested 
Grant (M€) 

Russian Fed. 

Total 

1 

1 

0.28 

0.28 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

UK 

Total 

2 

6 

3 

2 

45 

14 

15 

17 

9 

27 

23 

10 

4 

5 

1 

9 

1 

11 

204 

0.25 

0.05 

0.69 

0.22 

14.69 

3.29 

4.97 

4.49 

2.65 

7.99 

7.31 

2.88 

0.84 

1.56 

0.14 

2.66 

0.27 

2.71 

57.64 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
4.1.3 

Evaluation procedure  

As FCH JU was not in a position to implement its budget at the time of the first call, the call 
was managed by Commission officials and the infrastructure used for submission of proposals 
was the one of the Commission.  

According to the Call for Proposals, submission of proposals was done in one stage. 

The  evaluation  of  proposals,  carried  out  by  independent  experts,  was  in  line  with  the 
principles contained in the FCH JU Rules8, ensuring that the process was fair and transparent. 
For the FCH JU 2008 Call, the database of experts established by the Commission was used. 

Experts performed evaluations on a personal basis, not as representatives of their employer, 
their  country  or  any  other  entity.  They  were  expected  to  be  independent,  impartial  and 
objective,  and  to  behave  throughout  in  a  professional  manner.  They  signed  an  appointment 
letter,  including  a  declaration  of  confidentiality  and  absence  of  conflict  of  interest  before 
beginning their work. Confidentiality rules were to be adhered to at all times, before, during 
and after the evaluation. Proposals were allocated to individual experts taking account of the 
fields of expertise of the experts, and avoiding conflicts of interest. 

The  evaluation  comprised  an  individual  remote  evaluation  between  30  January  and  11 
February and Consensus and Panel meetings in Brussels from 16 to 19 February 2009. 

For  the  call  FCH-JU-2008-1,  there  was  an  original  list  of  39  experts  available  for  the 
evaluation.  According  to  the  number  of  proposals,  19  experts  were  asked  to  support  the 
Commission  throughout  the  evaluation.  Ten  of  them  acted  as  rapporteurs.  The  standard 
procedure  was  that  3  experts  were  asked  to  evaluate  a  proposal  individually  and  to  find  a 
consensus  during  the  Consensus  Meeting  that  was  moderated  by  Commission  staff.  For  the 
large-scale  demonstration  project  ("Demonstration  of  hydrogen  fuelled  road  vehicles  and 
refuelling  infrastructure"),  5  experts  were  asked  to  evaluate  the  proposal.  During  the 
Consensus Meeting the rapporteur had no accentuated or leading role in the discussion. The 
discussion  was  chaired  by  the  moderator.  When  possible,  the  group  of  experts  was  kept 
unchanged  for  a  specific  topic,  so  that  one  group  evaluated  all  proposals  for  one  specific 
topic. 

In  addition,  an  independent  expert  was  appointed  by  the  FCH  JU  to  observe  the  evaluation 
process from the point of view of its working and execution. The role of the observer was to 
give independent advice to the FCH JU on the conduct and fairness of the evaluation sessions, 
on  the  way  in  which  the  experts  apply  the  evaluation  criteria,  and  on  ways  in  which  the 
procedures could be improved.  

8 

FCH JU Rules for submission of proposals, and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures 
(posted on CORDIS: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/calls/cooperation/fchju_evrules_en.pdf). 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 17: Evaluation criteria used by experts for the FCH JU project proposals  

Evaluation criteria applicable to  
Collaborative project proposals 

S/T QUALITY 

IMPLEMENTATION 

IMPACT 

“Scientific and/or technological 
excellence 
(relevant to the topics addressed by 
the call)” 

“Quality and efficiency of the 
implementation and the 
management” 

“Potential impact through the 
development, dissemination and use 
of project results” 

•  Soundness of concept, and quality 

•  Appropriateness of the 

•  Contribution, at the European 

of objectives  

•  Progress beyond the state-of-the-

art 

•  Quality and effectiveness of the 
S/T methodology and associated 
work plan 

management structure and 
procedures 

•  Quality and relevant experience of 

the individual participants 

•  Quality of the consortium as a 

whole (including 
complementarity, balance)  

•  Appropriateness of the allocation 
and justification of the resources 
to be committed (budget, staff, 
equipment) 

[and/or international] level, to the 
expected impacts listed in the 
work programme under the 
relevant topic/activity 

•  Appropriateness of measures for 

the dissemination and/or 
exploitation of project results, and 
management of intellectual 
property. 

Evaluation criteria applicable to  
Coordination and support actions (Coordinating) 

S/T QUALITY 

IMPLEMENTATION 

IMPACT 

“Scientific and/or technological 
excellence 
(relevant to the topics addressed by 
the call)” 

“Quality and efficiency of the 
implementation and the 
management” 

“Potential impact through the 
development, dissemination and use 
of project results” 

•  Soundness of concept, and quality 

•  Appropriateness of the 

•  Contribution, at the European 

of objectives  

•  Contribution to the co-ordination 

management structure and 
procedures 

of high quality research 

•  Quality and relevant experience of 

•  Quality and effectiveness of the 
co-ordination mechanisms, and 
associated work plan 

the individual participants 

•  Quality of the consortium as a 

whole (including 
complementarity, balance)  

•  Appropriateness of the allocation 
and justification of the resources 
to be committed (budget, staff, 
equipment) 

[and/or international] level, to the 
expected impacts listed in the 
work programme under the 
relevant topic/activity 

•  Appropriateness of measures for 
spreading excellence, exploiting 
results, and disseminating 
knowledge, through engagement 
with stakeholders, and the public 
at large. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
Evaluation criteria applicable to 
Coordination and support actions (Supporting) 

S/T QUALITY 

IMPLEMENTATION 

IMPACT 

“Scientific and/or technological 
excellence 
(relevant to the topics addressed by 
the call)” 

“Quality and efficiency of the 
implementation and the 
management” 

“Potential impact through the 
development, dissemination and use 
of project results” 

•  Soundness of concept, and quality 

•  Appropriateness of the 

•  Contribution, at the European 

of objectives 

•  Quality and effectiveness of the 
support action mechanisms, and 
associated work plan 

management structure and 
procedures 

•  Quality and relevant experience of 

the individual participants 

•  Quality of the consortium as a 

whole (including 
complementarity, balance) [only if 
relevant] 

•  Appropriateness of the allocation 
and justification of the resources 
to be committed (budget, staff, 
equipment) 

[and/or international] level, to the 
expected impacts listed in the 
work programme under the 
relevant topic/activity 

•  Appropriateness of measures for 
spreading excellence, exploiting 
results, and disseminating 
knowledge, through engagement 
with stakeholders, and the public 
at large. 

Evaluation scores have been awarded for each of the three criteria, and not for the sub-criteria. 
The sub-criteria were addressing issues which the expert should consider in the assessment of 
that criterion. They also acted as reminders of issues to rise later during the discussions of the 
proposal. 

The  relevance  of  a  proposal  was  considered  in  relation  to  the  topic(s)  of  the  Annual 
Implementation  Plan  open  in  the  call,  and  to  the  objectives  of  the  call.  These  aspects  have 
been  integrated  in  the  application  of  the  criterion  "S/T  Quality",  and  the  first  sub-criterion 
under  "Impact"  respectively.  When  a  proposal  was  partially  relevant  because  it  only 
marginally has addressed the topic(s) of the call, or if only part of the proposal has addressed 
the  topic(s),  this  condition  was  reflected  in  the  scoring  of  the  first  criterion.  Proposals  that 
were clearly not relevant to a call ("out of scope") have been rejected on eligibility grounds. 
Each criterion was scored out of 5. Half marks could have been given.  

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Figure 12: Evaluation process and timetable for the call FCH-JU-2008-1  

Call deadline
15 January 2009 

Eligible 

Ineligible 

Individual Remote 
 30Jan-11 Feb 09 

Consensus
16-18 February 09 

Panel
19-20 February 09 

Results 

Initial info 
letters 
March 09 

FCH-JU ranking 
March/April 2009 

Ranked 
list 

Negotiations
May/July 2009 

FCH-JU funding Decision 
Contract signatures 
from September 2009 

Formal 
Decision 

Rejected list 

FCH-JU Rejection 
Decision 
Decision

Negotiation 
failed 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
4.1.4 

Evaluation results 

Application areas 

Proposals submitted to 
evaluators 

Transportation & Refuelling 
Infrastructure 

Hydrogen Production & 
Distribution 

Stationary Power Generation 
& CHP 

Early Markets 

Cross cutting Issues 

TOTAL 

4 

7 

15 

5 

1 

32 

Below thresholds 
proposals 

Proposals proposed for funding 

Proposals on reserve list 

% 

25% 

57% 

40% 

60% 

0% 

% 

75% 

43% 

47% 

40% 

100% 

3 

3 

7 

2 

1 

1 

4 

6 

3 

0 

Requested FCH 
JU contribution 
(in M€) 

% 

Requested FCH 
JU contribution 
(in M€) 

12.1 

4.54 

15.18 

2 

13% 

4.32 

3.23 

0.27 

14 

44% 

16 

50% 

35.32 

2 

6% 

4.32 

Table 18: Proposals submitted to evaluators, projects that passed the threshold(s), but could not be funded and projects that scored below the threshold(s) 

EN 

49 

EN 

 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Number of proposals 

Number of participations in

Total costs (in M€) 

FCH requested contribution (in M€) 

Activity 

Area 

Eligible 
proposals 

Ranked 
list 

Success 
rate 

Eligible 
proposals 

Ranked 
list 

Success 
rate 

Eligible 
proposals 

Ranked 
list 

Success 
rate 

Eligible 
proposals 

Ranked list 

Success 
rate 

Transportation 
& Refuelling 
Infrastructure 

Hydrogen 
Production and 
Distribution 

Stationary 
Power 
Generation & 
Combined Heat 
and Power 
(CHP) 

SP1-JTI-FCH.1 

4 

3 

75.0% 

41 

35 

85.4% 

26.3  

24.2  

92.0% 

13.5  

12.1  

89,4% 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2 

7 

3 

42.9% 

47 

18 

38.3% 

19.8  

7.4  

37.6% 

13.3  

4.5  

34,2% 

SP1-JTI-FCH.3 

15 

9 

60.0% 

115 

68 

59.1% 

55.9  

30.9  

55.3% 

34.7  

19.5  

56,2% 

Early Markets 

SP1-JTI-FCH.4 

Cross-cutting 
Activities 

TOTAL 

SP1-JTI-FCH.5 

5 

1 

2 

1 

40.0% 

34 

10 

29.4% 

14.5  

4.2  

29.1% 

9.3  

3.2  

34,7% 

100.0%

6 

6 

100.0%

0.6  

0.6  

100.0%

0.3  

0.3  

100,0% 

32 

18 

56,3% 

243 

137 

56.4% 

117.1  

67.3  

57.5% 

71.1  

39.7  

55.7% 

Table 19: Success rate per activity area 

EN 

50 

EN 

 
  
 
Proposals evaluated 

Proposals proposed for funding 

Success rate (%) 

Participation 

SMEs 

Participation 

SMEs 

Participation 

FCH JU 
requested 
contribution 

Total n° 
partici-
pants  

FCH JU 
requested 
contribution 
(in M€) 

Total n° 
SMEs 

FCH JU 
requested 
contribution 
(in M€) 

Total n° 
partici-
pants 

FCH JU 
requested 
contribution 
(in M€) 

Total n° 
SMEs 

FCH JU 
requested 
contribution 
(in M€) 

All 
Partici-
pants 

SMEs

Total  

SMEs 

% 

% 

% 

% 

211 

66.37 

73 

35% 21.65  33% 

105 

34.89 

23 

22% 

7.67

22% 

50% 

32% 

53% 

35% 

32 

2.07 

5 

16% 0.22 

11% 

32 

2.07 

5 

16% 

0.22

11% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Funding 
scheme 

Collaborative 
Projects 

Support 
Actions 

Total 

243 

68.44 

78 

32% 21.87  32% 

137 

36.96 

28 

20% 

7.89

21% 

56% 

36% 

54% 

36% 

Table 20: Total funding requested by all proposals on ranked list9 and total funding requested by their SME partners 

9 

A "ranked list" covers all projects that passed the threshold, (includes reserve list proposals). 

EN 

51 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
                                                 
Type of participants 

Public body (excl. 
research and education) 

Research organisations 

Higher or secondary 
education 

Private for profit (excl. 
education) 

Others 

Total 

Proposals 

Ranked list 

Suc-
cess 

Proposals 

Ranked 
list 

Suc-
cess 

Proposals 

Ranked 
list 

Suc-
cess 

Proposals 

Ranked 
list 

Suc-
cess 

Proposals 

Ranked 
list 

Suc-
cess 

Propo-
sals 

Ranked 
list 

Suc-
cess 

Nb  % 

Nb   % 

% 

Nb   % 

Nb   % 

% 

 Nb  % 

 Nb  % 

% 

Nb   % 

Nb   % 

% 

Nb   % 

Nb   % 

% 

Nb 

Nb 

% 

1 

100 

1 

100 

100 

63 

89 

34 

81 

48 

54 

98 

26 

96 

47 

86 

82 

41 

68 

39 

7 

64 

3 

43 

27 

211 

105 

50 

0 

0 

- 

- 

8 

11 

8 

19 

11 

1 

2 

1 

4 

2 

19 

18 

19 

32 

18 

4 

36 

4 

57 

36 

32 

32 

100 

1 

100 

1 

100 

100 

71 

100 

42 

100 

59.2 

55 

100 

27 

100 

49 

105 

100 

60 

100 

57.1 

11 

100 

7 

100 

63.6 

243 

137 

56 

Funding 
schemes 

Collaborative 
Projects  

Support 
Actions 

Total 

Table 21: Breakdown of the total number of participants involved in the proposals on ranked list by type of organisation 

EN 

52 

EN 

 
  
 
  
Table 22: Breakdown of FCH JU requested contribution in the proposals on ranked list10 by 
country 

Share of FCH JU requested contribution (in M€)  

Country 

Collaborative Projects 

Support Actions 

Total 

Proposals  

Ranked 
list  

% 

Proposals 

Ranked 
list  

% 

Proposals  

Ranked 
list  

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

0.69 

0.20 

3.25 

13.64 

4.97 

4.49 

7.86 

7.19 

2.79 

0.16 

0.84 

1.56 

0.14 

0.27 

2.65 

2.55 

2.62 

0.15 

0.20 

2.15 

9.84 

2.40 

0.87 

3.22 

3.93 

0.4 

0.6 

6.2 

28.2

6.9 

2.5 

9.2 

11.3

1.37 

0.16 

0.36 

3.9 

0.5 

1.0 

0.14 

0.4 

2.39 

1.82 

0.32 

6.9 

5.2 

0.9 

0.05 

0.05 

2.4 

0.02 

0.04 

1.05 

0.02 

0.04 

1.05 

0.9 

2.0 

50.8

0.05 

0.69 

0.22 

3.29 

0.05 

0.15 

0.22 

2.19 

14.69 

10.90 

0.13 

0.12 

0.13 

0.12 

6.3 

5.9 

4.97 

4.49 

7.99 

7.31 

2.40 

0.87 

3.35 

4.05 

% 

100 

21.9

100 

66.6

74.2

48.3

19.4

41.9

55.5

0.09 

0.08 

0.09 

0.08 

4.6 

4.1 

0.11 

0.09 

0.11 

0.09 

5.3 

4.4 

2.88 

0.25 

0.84 

1.56 

0.14 

0.27 

2.65 

2.66 

2.71 

1.46 

0.25 

0.36 

50.7

100 

42.7

0.14 

100 

2.39 

1.93 

0.41 

90.4

72.7

15.3

Total EU 
Member 
States 

55.85 

29.33 

84 

1.79 

1.79 

87 

57.64 

31.13 

54.0

CH 

3.48 

2.00 

5.7 

0.14 

0.14 

6.6 

3.61 

2.13 

59.1

10 

A "ranked list" covers all projects that passed the threshold, (includes reserve list proposals). 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                 
Share of FCH JU requested contribution (in M€)  

Country 

Collaborative Projects 

Support Actions 

Total 

Proposals  

Ranked 
list  

% 

Proposals 

Ranked 
list  

% 

Proposals  

Ranked 
list  

% 

0.20 

0.20 

0.06 

0.06 

2.7 

0.06 

0.06 

100 

3.78 

3.46 

9.9 

0.09 

0.09 

4.1 

3.87 

3.54 

91.6

2.79 

0.10 

0.3 

2.79 

0.10 

3.7 

10.24 

5.56 

15.9

0.28 

0.28 

13.4

10.52 

5.84 

55.5

FYROM 

HR 

IL 

IS 

LI 

ME 

NO 

RS 

TR 

Total 
Associated 
Countries 

ACP 

Asia  

CN 

IN 

Eastern 
Europe and 
Central Asia 

RU 

0.28 

0.28 

Latin America 

Mediterranean 
Partner 
Countries 

Western 
Balkans (Excl. 
FYROM, ME, 
RS) 

Total ICPC 
countries 

Total Third 
Countries 

0.28 

0.28 

TOTAL 

66.37 

34.89 

53 

2.07 

2.07 

100

68.44 

36.96 

54 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
4.1.5  Grant Agreements signed 

Following  the  decision  of  the  FCH  JU  Governing  Board  of  15  May  2009  on  the  list  of 
projects to enter into negotiations with, the negotiations for the 16 proposals, as indicated in 
the table 18, started on 5 June 2009.  

During negotiations, on 24 July 2009, the consortium for Proposal No. 245055, CTD-SOFC 
(Area 3: Stationary Power Generation & CHP) announced the FCH JU that is unable to take 
up the offer and declined the opportunity to negotiate, due to budgetary constraints, namely 
reduced funding limits of the direct costs to comply with the matching principle. Therefore, 
the  first  proposal  in  the  reserve  list  of  Area  3:  Stationary  Power  Generation  &  CHP, 
DEMMEA, No. 245156 was offered and started negotiations on 27 July 2009. 

On 30 November 2009 it was decided to stop negotiations for Project No. 245091, FRALITE, 
due to the coordinator's announcement of a move of their relevant research facilities outside 
Europe.  Therefore,  the  second  proposal  on  the  reserve  list  of  Area  3:  Stationary  Power 
Generation & CHP, Project No. 245339, LOLIPEM, was offered to start negotiations, which 
began on 2 December 2009.  

A total of 16 Grant Agreements were signed for the call FCH-JU-2008-1 in December 2009. 
Please see table 23 below for details on the duration of negotiations for the projects for which 
Grant Agreements were signed.  

Project acronym 

Project number 

Negotiations started 

1. Transportation & Refuelling Infrastructure 

H2Moves Scandinavia 

NextHyLights 

Auto-Stack 

245101 

245133 

245142 

2. Hydrogen Production and Distribution 

NEXPEL 

PrimoLyzer 

Hydrosol-3D 

245262 

245228 

245224 

3. Stationary Power Generation and CHP 

GENIUS 

ASSENT 

DEMMEA 

KEEPEMALIVE 

245128 

244821 

245156 

245113 

5/6/2009 

5/6/2009 

5/6/2009 

5/6/2009 

5/6/2009 

5/6/2009 

5/6/2009 

5/6/2009 

Signature of 
Grant 
Agreement 

18/12/2009 

18/12/2009 

18/12/2009 

18/12/2009 

18/12/2009 

18/12/2009 

16/12/2009 

16/12/2009 

27/7/2009 

18/12/2009 

5/6/2009 

16/12/2009 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
Project acronym 

Project number 

Negotiations started 

Signature of 
Grant 
Agreement 

LOLIPEM 

MCFC-CONTEX 

ROBANODE 

4. Early Markets 

IRAFC 

ISH2SUP 

5. Cross-Cutting Issues 

245339 

245171 

245355 

245202 

245294 

2/12/2009 

22/12/2009 

5/6/2009 

5/6/2009 

5/6/2009 

5/6/2009 

22/12/2009 

16/12/2009 

18/12/2009 

18/12/2009 

Prepar-H2 

245332 

5/6/2009 

21/12/2009 

Table 23: Timetable of negotiations by project  

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
Annex 3: Table of projects for which Grant Agreements have been signed (in €) 

№ 

GA 
number 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

1 

245355 

ROBANODE 

2 

245156 

DEMMEA 

3 

245339 

LOLIPEM 

4 

245171 

MCFC-
CONTEX 

5 

245128 

GENIUS 

6 

244821 

ASSENT 

Understanding and mini-
mizing anode degradation in 
hydrogen and natural gas 
fuelled SOFCs 

Understanding the Degrada-
tion Mechanisms of 
Membrane-Electrode-
Assembly for High 
Temperature PEMFCs and 
Optimization of the Individual 
Components 

Long-life PEM-FCH & CHP 
systems at temperatures 
higher than 100°C 

MCFC catalyst and stack 
component degradation and 
lifetime: Fuel Gas 
CONTaminant effects and 
EXtraction strategies 

GEneric diagNosis 
InstrUment for SOFC 
Systems 

Anode Sub-System 
Development & Optimisation 

EN 

FCH JU 
financial 
contribution 

In-kind 
contributions 
from industry 

1,568,530

900,381

1,638,986

722,042

1,360,227

393,748

1,841,929

1,544,130

2,067,785

1,092,367

1,954,675

2,180,289

57 

Own resources 
other than in-
kind 
contributions 
from industry 

0

0

0

0

0

0

Member 
States 
contribution 

Total 
contributions 

N/A 

900,381 

N/A 

722,042 

N/A 

393,748 

N/A 

1,544,130 

N/A 

1,092,367 

N/A 

2,180,289 

EN 

 
  
№ 

GA 
number 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

FCH JU 
financial 
contribution 

In-kind 
contributions 
from industry 

Own resources 
other than in-
kind 
contributions 
from industry 

Member 
States 
contribution 

Total 
contributions 

7 

245113 

KEEPEMALIVE  Knowledge to Enhance the 

1,264,582

474,095

for SOFC systems 

8 

9 

245142 

Auto-Stack 

245101 

H2moves 
Scandinavia 

10 

245133 

NextHyLights 

11 

245262 

NEXPEL 

Endurance of PEM fuel cells 
by Accelerated LIfetime 
Verification Experiments 

Automotive Fuel Cell Stack 
Cluster Initiative for Europe 

H2moves.eu Scandinavia 

Supporting action to prepare 
large-scale hydrogen vehicle 
demonstration in Europe 

Next-Generation PEM 
Electrolyser for Sustainable 
Hydrogen Production 

12 

245224 

HYDROSOL-3D  Scale Up of Thermochemical 
HYDROgen Production in a 
SOLar Monolithic Reactor: a 
3rd Generation Design Study 

1,193,016

963,627

499,303

523,006

1,256,286

839,482

984,427

360,761

13 

245228 

PrimoLyzer 

14 

245294 

ISH2SUP 

PRessurIzed PEM 
electrOLYZER 

In  situ  H2  supply  technology 
for  micro  fuel  cells  powering 
mobile electronics appliances 

1,154,023

557,771

1,000,625

297,412

0

0

N/A 

474,095 

N/A 

963,627 

0

0

0

0

0

N/A 

523,006 

N/A 

839,482 

N/A 

360,761 

N/A 

N/A 

557,771 

297,412 

7,756,037

11,726,508

1.622.000

N/A 

13,348,508 

EN 

58 

EN 

 
  
№ 

GA 
number 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

15 

245202 

IRAFC 

16 

245332 

Prepar-H2 

Development of an Internal 
Reforming Alcohol High 
Temperature PEM Fuel Cell 
Stack 

Preparing socio and economic 
evaluations of future H2 
lighthouse projects 

FCH JU 
financial 
contribution 

In-kind 
contributions 
from industry 

1,424,150

409,581

257,075

81,913

Own resources 
other than in-
kind 
contributions 
from industry 

0

0

Member 
States 
contribution 

Total 
contributions 

N/A 

409,581 

N/A 

81,913 

TOTAL 

27,221,656

23,067,113

1,622,000

N/A 

24,689,113 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
  
 
4.2 

Call FCH-JU-2009-1 

4.2.1 

Summary information 

The  Call  for  Proposals  FCH-JU-2009-1  was  published  on  2  July  2009.  The  deadline  for 
submissions was 15 October 2009. A total of 29 topics were called for.  

Indicative 
FCH JU 
Funding 

(in M€) 

26.4

Area/ Topics called 

Funding Schemes 

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.1: Transportation & Refuelling Infrastructure 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.1.1 Large-scale demonstration of 
road vehicles and refuelling infrastructure II 

Collaborative Project 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.1.2 Development of electric driven 
turbocharger for fuel cell 

Collaborative Project 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.1.3 Development and optimisation 
of PEM FC electrodes and GDLs 

Collaborative Project 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.1.4 Cryogenic hydrogen storage 

Collaborative Project 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.1.5 Pre-normative Research (PNR) 
on composite storage 

Collaborative Project 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.1.6 Pre-normative Research (PNR) 
on fuel quality 

Collaborative Project 

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.2: Hydrogen Production & Distribution 

5.7

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.2.1 Development of fuel 
processing catalyst, modules & systems 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.2.2 Development of gas 
purification technologies for hydrogen production 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.2.3 New generation of high 
temperature electrolyser 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.2.4 Improved solid state hydrogen 
storage systems 

Collaborative Project 

Collaborative Project 

Collaborative Project 

Collaborative Project 

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.3: Stationary Power Generation & CHP 

25.9

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.1 Fundamentals of fuel cell 
degradation for stationary power application 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.2 Materials development for 
cells, stacks and balance of plant (BoP) 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.3 Operation diagnostics and 
control for stationary applications 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.4 Component improvement for 
stationary power applications  

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.5 Proof-of- concept fuel cell 
systems  

Collaborative Project 

Collaborative Project 

Collaborative Project 

Collaborative Project 

Collaborative Project 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
Area/ Topics called 

Funding Schemes 

Indicative 
FCH JU 
Funding 

(in M€) 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.6 Validation of integrated fuel 
cell systems readiness 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.7 Market capacity Build and 
Field demonstration of stationary fuel cell systems 

Collaborative Project 

Collaborative Project 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.8 Application specific targets for 
stationary power generation and related technology 
benchmark 

Coordination and Support 
Actions (Supporting Action) 

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.4: Early Markets 

10.3 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.4.1 Demonstration of fuel cell-
powered materials handling vehicles and infrastructure 

Collaborative Project 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.4.2 Portable generators, backup 
and UPS power systems 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.4.3 Demonstration of portable and 
micro fuel cells for various applications 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.4.4 Miniaturised balance of plant 
components  

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.4.5 PNR & RCS on the indoor use 
of fuel cells 

Collaborative Project 

Collaborative Project 

Collaborative Project 

Collaborative Project 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.4.6 SME promotion: Early demand 
stimulation schemes 

Coordination and Support 
Actions (Supporting Action) 

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.5: Cross-cutting Issues 

 3.0 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.5.1 Development of educational 
programmes  

Coordination and Support 
Actions (Supporting Action) 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.5.2 Training initiatives for 
regulators  

Coordination and Support 
Actions (Supporting Action) 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.5.3 SME promotion: Outreach 
program  

Coordination and Support 
Actions (Supporting Action) 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.5.4 Development of a framework 
for Technology Monitoring and Assessments (TMA) 

Coordination and Support 
Actions (Supporting Action) 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.5.5 Development of a framework 
for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 

Coordination and Support 
Actions (Supporting Action) 

Total indicative FCH JU Funding 

71.3

Table 24: Topics addressed in the call FCH-JU-2009-1  

The total indicative budget for the call of 71.3 M€ from the FCH JU is expected to be at least 
matched by the in-kind contributions from the industry participants in projects. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
4.2.2 

Analysis of proposals submitted 

Eligibility of proposals was verified according to the same criteria and process as in the call 
FCH-JU-2008-1(see section 4.1.2.). 

Table 25 below illustrates the number of proposals submitted by topic and those eligible for 
evaluation. 

Topic/Application Area 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.1.1 Large-
scale demonstration of road 
vehicles and refuelling 
infrastructure II 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.1.2 
Development of electric driven 
turbocharger for fuel cell 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.1.3 
Development and optimisation 
of PEM FC electrodes and 
GDLs 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.1.4 
Cryogenic hydrogen storage 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.1.5 Pre-
normative Research (PNR) on 
composite storage 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.1.6 Pre-
normative Research (PNR) on 
fuel quality 

Transportation and 
Refuelling Infrastructure 
(Total) 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.2.1 
Development of fuel processing 
catalyst, modules & systems 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.2.2 
Development of gas purification 
technologies for hydrogen 
production 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.2.3 New 
generation of high temperature 
electrolyser 

Total 
number of 
proposals 
submitted 

Number of proposals 
found ineligible 

Number of proposals 
evaluated 

% 

% 

1 

1 

3 

0 

1 

1 

7 

1 

1 

1 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

3 

0 

1 

1 

7 

1 

1 

1 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100

100 

100 

100 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Total 
number of 
proposals 
submitted 

Number of proposals 
found ineligible 

Number of proposals 
evaluated 

% 

% 

Topic/Application Area 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.2.4 
Improved solid state hydrogen 
storage systems 

Hydrogen Production & 
Distribution (Total) 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.1 
Fundamentals of fuel cell 
degradation for stationary power 
application 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.2 
Materials development for cells, 
stacks and balance of plant 
(BoP) 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.3 
Operation diagnostics and 
control for stationary 
applications 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.4 
Component improvement for 
stationary power applications  

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.5 Proof-of-
concept fuel cell systems  

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.6 
Validation of integrated fuel cell 
systems readiness 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.7 Market 
capacity Build and Field 
demonstration of stationary fuel 
cell systems 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.3.8 
Application specific targets for 
stationary power generation and 
related technology benchmark 

4 

7 

3 

4 

4 

2 

7 

1 

0 

1 

Stationary Power 
Generation & CHP (Total) 

21

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.4.1 
Demonstration of fuel cell-
powered materials handling 
vehicles and infrastructure 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.4.2 Portable 

4 

1 

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

14

0 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

4 

7 

3 

4 

4 

1 

3 

1 

0 

1 

100 

100

100 

100 

100 

100 

86 

100 

100 

20 

95 

4 

1 

100 

100 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Total 
number of 
proposals 
submitted 

Number of proposals 
found ineligible 

Number of proposals 
evaluated 

% 

% 

Topic/Application Area 

generators, backup and UPS 
power systems 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.4.3 
Demonstration of portable and 
micro fuel cells for various 
applications 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.4.4 
Miniaturised balance of plant 
components  

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.4.5 PNR & 
RCS on the indoor use of fuel 
cells 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.4.6 SME 
promotion: Early demand 
stimulation schemes 

Early Markets (Total)  

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.5.1 
Development of educational 
programmes  

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.5.2 Training 
initiatives for regulators  

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.5.3 SME 
promotion: Outreach program  

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.5.4 
Development of a framework for 
Technology Monitoring and 
Assessments (TMA) 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2009.5.5 
Development of a framework for 
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 

Cross-cutting issues (Total) 

7 

1 

0 

1 

0 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

8 

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

1 

0 

7 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

8 

49 

100 

100 

100

100 

100 

100 

0 

100

98 

TOTAL 

50

Table 25: Proposals submitted and eligible for evaluation by topic 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Funding scheme 

Collaborative 
Projects 
Support Actions 
Total 

Total number 
participants  

344 

56 
400 

Participation 

Proposals evaluated 

FCH JU requested contribution      

Total number of SMEs 

SMEs 

FCH JU requested contribution    
(in M€) 

(in M€) 

124.68 

5.49 
130.17 

84 

19 
103 

% 

24.4% 

33.9% 
25.8% 

32.09 

2.10 
34.19 

% 

25.7% 

38.3% 
26.3% 

Table 26: Total funding requested by all proposals eligible for evaluation and total funding requested by their SMEs partners 

OTHERS
2%

RESEARCH
22%

INDUSTRY
60%
(SME 23%)

UNIVERSITIES
16%

OTHERS
5%

INDUSTRY
48%
(SME  21%)

RESEARCH
28%

UNIVERSITIES
19%

Budget breakdown 

(Total requested grant = 130.1 M€) 

Participant organisation type 

(Number of participants = 400) 

Figure 13: Breakdown of the total number of participants involved in the proposals eligible for evaluation by type of organisation 

EN 

65 

EN 

 
  
  
  
 
 
Table 27: Breakdown of the total number of participants involved in the proposals eligible for 
evaluation by country 

Member 
States 

Number of 
proposals 

Requested 
Grant (M€) 

  Associated Countries 

Number of 
proposals 

Requested 
Grant 
(M€) 

AT 

BE 

BG 

DE 

DK 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

UK 

Total 

7 

18 

1 

85 

24 

10 

19 

10 

45 

54 

20 

5 

2 

1 

8 

2 

47 

358 

2.05 

  Switzerland 

1.73 

  Croatia 

0.28 

  Norway 

21.1 

  Serbia 

9.17 

  Turkey 

2.51 

  Total 

23 

1 

10 

1 

1 

36 

9.3 

0.03 

7.84 

0.4 

0.07 

17.64 

3.72 

3.18 

16.67 

24.21 

Third Countries 

Number of 
proposals 

Requested 
Grant 
(M€) 

7 

  Canada 

0.73 

  Russian Fed. 

0.42 

  United States 

0.19 

  Total 

2 

3 

1 

6 

0 

0.73 

0 

0.73 

1.51 

0.39 

16.94 

111.8 

4.2.3 

Evaluation procedure  

The same evaluation process and criteria were used for this call FCH-JU-2009-1 as in the call 
FCH-JU-2008-1  (see  section  4.1.3.).  According  to  the  Call  for  Proposals,  submission  of 
proposals was done in one stage, i.e., submission of complete proposals. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 14: Evaluation process and timetable for the call FCH-JU-2009-1  

Call deadline
15 October 2009 

Eligible 

Ineligible 

Individual Remote 
 3-13 November 09 

Consensus
16-18 November 09 

Panel
19-20 November 09 

Results 

Initial info 
letters 
Dec 09 

FCH-JU ranking 
Dec 2009/Feb 2010 

Ranked 
list 

Negotiations
March/June 
2010 

FCH-JU funding Decision 
Contract signatures 
from July 2010 

Formal 
Decision 

Rejected list 

FCH-JU Rejection 
Decision 
Decision

Negotiation 
failed 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
4.2.4 

Evaluation results 

Application 
areas 

Proposals 
submitted 
to 
evaluators 

Below 
thresholds 
proposals 

Above thresholds 
proposals (proposed for 
funding) 

Above thresholds 
proposals (reserve list) 

Nb  % 

Nb % 

Requested 
FCH JU 
contribution 
(in M€) 

Nb  % 

Requested 
FCH JU 
contribution 
(in M€) 

Transportation 
& Refuelling 
Infrastructure 

Hydrogen 
Production & 
Distribution 

Stationary 
Power 
Generation & 
CHP 

Early Markets 

Cross cutting 
Issues 

7 

7 

2 

28.6% 2 

28.6%

29.83 

3 

42.9% 

8.5 

5 

71.4% 2 

28.6%

4.75 

21(*) 

5 

23.8% 13  61.9%

30 

2 

9.5% 

4.86 

7 

8 

3 

42.9% 4 

57.1%

14.27 

3 

37.5% 5 

62.5%

2.35 

TOTAL 

50 

18  36.0% 26  52.0%

81.2 

5 

10.0% 

13.36 

(*)  One  proposal  (area  3:  Stationary)  was  declared  ineligible  during  evaluations  (none  of  the  partners  were 
members of any IG/RG). 

Table 28: Proposals the panel proposed for funding, passed the threshold(s), but could not be 
funded (reserve list) and were scored below the threshold(s) 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Proposals evaluated 

Proposals proposed for funding 

Success rate (%) 

Participation 

SMEs 

Participation 

SMEs 

Participation 

FCH JU 
requested 
contribution 

Total 
number 
of 
applicants 

FCH JU 
requested 
contribution 
(in M€) 

Total numer 
of SMEs 

FCH JU 
requested 
contribution 
(in M€) 

Total 
number 
of 
applicants 

FCH 
requested 
contribution 
(in M€) 

Total number 
of SMEs 

FCH JU 
requested 
contribution 
(in M€) 

Total 

SMEs  Total 

SMEs 

Total  % 

Total  % 

Total  % 

Total  % 

% 

% 

% 

% 

339 

122.47 

81 

23.9%  31.81  26.0% 

195 

78.38 

46 

23.6%  21.55  27.5%  57.5%  56.8%  64.0%  67.7% 

56 

5.22 

19 

33.9% 

2.10 

40.3% 

39 

2.96 

12 

30.8% 

0.77 

26.1%  69.6%  63.2%  56.8%  36.7% 

Funding 
scheme 

Collaborative 
Projects 

Support 
Actions 

Total 

395 

127.69 

100 

25.3%  33.91  26.6%

234 

81.34 

58 

24.8%  22.32  27.4% 59.2%  58.0%  63.7%  65.8% 

Table 29: Total funding requested by all proposals on ranked list11 and total funding requested by their SME partners 

11 

A "ranked list" covers all projects that passed the threshold, (includes reserve list proposals). 

EN 

69 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
 
                                                 
Public body (excl. research 
and education) 

Research organisations 

Higher or secondary 
education 

Private for profit (excl. 
education)/SMEs 

Others 

Total 

Proposals 

Proposed 
for funding 

Suc 
cess 

Proposals 

Proposed 
for funding 

Suc 
cess 

Proposals 

Proposed 
for funding 

Suc 
cess 

Proposals 

Proposed for 
funding 

Suc 
cess 

Proposals 

Proposed 
for funding 

Suc 
cess 

Nb 

% 

Nb 

% 

% 

Nb 

% 

Nb 

% 

% 

Nb 

% 

Nb 

% 

% 

Nb 

% 

Nb 

% 

% 

Nb 

% 

Nb 

% 

% 

All 

Proposed 
for 
funding 

Suc 
ces 

% 

7 

70% 

7 

70% 

70% 

92 

84% 

52 

81% 

47% 

61 

84% 

23 

70% 

32% 

173 

90% 

108 

91% 

56% 

6 

67% 

5 

63% 

56% 

339 

195 

58% 

3 

30% 

3 

30% 

30% 

18 

16% 

12 

19% 

11% 

12 

16% 

10 

30% 

14% 

20 

10% 

11 

9% 

6% 

3 

33% 

3 

38% 

33% 

56 

39 

70% 

10 

100% 

10 

100% 

100% 

110 

100% 

64 

100% 

58% 

73 

100% 

33 

100% 

45% 

193 

100% 

119 

100% 

62% 

9 

100% 

8 

100% 

89% 

395 

234 

59% 

Funding 
schemes 

Collaborative 
Projects  

Support 
Actions 

Total 

Table 30: Breakdown of the total number of participants involved in the proposals on ranked list12 by type of organisation the FCH JU is using 

12 

EN 

A "ranked list" covers all projects that passed the threshold, (includes reserve list proposals). 

70 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
Country 

Collaborative Projects 

Support Actions 

Total 

Proposals 
(in M€) 

Ranked 
list 

1.97 

1.67 

0.28 

19.06 

9.11 

2.47 

3.05 

2.95 

16.10 

23.62 

6.91 

0.68 

0.42 

0.19 

1.45 

0.39 

1.29 

1.40 

0.00 

9.17 

6.53 

0.07 

1.55 

2.12 

8.79 

18.32 

2.72 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.30 

0.20 

15.87 

10.72 

% 

65.5 

83.6 

0 

48.1 

71.7 

2.7 

50.7 

71.7 

54.6 

77.6 

39.3 

0 

0 

0 

20.6 

51.1 

67.5 

Proposals 
(in M€) 

Ranked 
list 

0.08 

0.06 

2.04 

0.06 

0.04 

0.67 

0.09 

0.57 

0.47 

0.08 

0.05 

0.08 

0.06 

1.18 

0.04 

0.04 

0.09 

0.09 

0.22 

0.47 

0.00 

0.05 

% 

100 

100 

57.6 

69.9 

100 

13.7 

100 

38 

100 

0 

100 

0.06 

0.06 

100 

Proposals 
(in M€) 

Ranked 
list 

2.05 

1.73 

0.28 

1.37 

1.45 

0.00 

21.10 

10.34 

9.17 

2.51 

3.72 

3.04 

16.67 

24.10 

7.00 

0.73 

0.42 

0.19 

1.51 

0.39 

6.58 

0.11 

1.64 

2.21 

9.01 

18.80 

2.72 

0.05 

0.00 

0.00 

0.36 

0.20 

0.72 

0.45 

62.8 

16.60 

11.18 

% 

66.9 

84.1 

0 

49 

71.7 

4.3 

44 

72.5 

54 

78 

38.8 

6.8 

0 

0 

23.6 

51.1 

67.3 

106.21 

63.17 

59.5 

5.00 

2.84 

56.7 

111.21 

66.00 

59.3 

8.90 

8.15 

91.6 

7.78 

0.40 

0.07 

6.74 

0.00 

0.07 

86.6 

0 

100 

0.40 

0.03 

0.06 

0.10 

0.03 

0.00 

24.5 

100 

0.0% 

9.30 

0.03 

7.84 

8.25 

0.03 

6.74 

88.7 

100 

86 

17.14 

14.96 

87.3 

0.49 

0.13 

26.2 

17.63 

15.09 

85.6 

AT 

BE 

BG 

DE 

DK 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

IT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

UK 

Total EU 
Member 
States 

CH 

HR 

NO 

RS 

TR 

Total 
Associa-
ted 
Countries 

Eastern 
Europe 
and 
Central 
Asia 

RU 

0.73 

0.25 

33.5 

0.73 

0.25 

33.5 

Table 31: Breakdown of FCH JU requested contribution in the proposals on ranked list13 by 
country  

13 

A "ranked list" covers all projects that passed the threshold, (includes reserve list proposals). 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.2.5  Grant Agreements signed 

Grant Agreements for the call FCH-JU-2009-1 were foreseen to be signed in the last semester 
of 2010. 

5. 

PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY THE ARTEMIS JU 

Growing  out  of  the  ARTEMIS  European  Technology  Platform  (ETP),  the  ARTEMIS  Joint 
Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as "ARTEMIS JU") was established in 2008 and aims to 
tackle  the  research  and  structural  challenges  in  embedded  systems  faced  by  the  industrial 
sector.  The  objective  is  to  define  and  implement  a  Research  Agenda  for  Embedded 
Computing Systems. ARTEMIS JU aims to help European industry consolidate and reinforce 
its world leadership in embedded computing technologies. The economic impact in terms of 
jobs  and  growth  is  expected  to  exceed  100  billion  €  over  ten  years.  The  European  Union 
recognises  the  strategic  importance  of  Embedded  Computing  Systems  and  launched  the 
ARTEMIS Joint Technology Initiative.  

The  ARTEMIS  JTI  was  implemented  as  a  Joint  Undertaking  which  is  a  public-private 
partnership between: 

•  The European Commission; 
•  Participating Member and Associated States, by now 22 countries; 
•  ARTEMISIA, a non-profit industrial association of R&D actors in the field of ARTEMIS. 

The  ARTEMIS  JU  shall  manage  and  co-ordinate  research  activities  through  open  Calls  for 
Proposals  through  a  10-year,  2.5  billion  €  research  programme  on  Embedded  Computing 
Systems. The programme is open to organisations in the EU Member States and Associated 
Countries.  Selected  projects  shall  be  co-financed  by  the  Joint  Undertaking  and  the  Member 
States that have joined ARTEMIS. The ARTEMIS JU will implement significant parts of the 
ARTEMIS–ETP  Strategic  Research  Agenda  co-funded  by  industry,  research  organisations, 
Member States and the Commission's own ICT programme.  

The ARTEMIS JU has managed one Call for Proposals in 2009. 

5.1 

Call ARTEMIS-2008-1 

5.1.1  Grant Agreements signed 

The  annex  III  for  ARTEMIS  in  the  2009  Commission  Staff  Working  Document 
accompanying the 2009 Annual report on RTD activities14 reporting on the progress made in 
2008 did not include the list of projects for which Grant Agreements were signed for the 2008 
call. The list of the 12 Grant Agreements which have been signed following this call is now 
available in the following annex: 

14 

SEC(2009)1380. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 4: Table of projects for which Grant Agreements have been signed (in €)  

№ 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

Total project 
costs 

Total national 
funding 

ARTEMIS JU 
funding 

Signature 
date 

100008  CAMMI 

Cognitive Adaptive Man-Machine Interface 

7,315,506.00 

1,982,381.34 

1,221,689.50 

12/11/2009 

100016  CESAR 

Cost-Efficient Methods and Processes for Safety Relevant 
Embedded Systems 

100039  CHARTER 

Critical and High Assurance Requirements Transformed 
through Engineering Rigour 

100022  CHESS 

Composition with Guarantees - for High-integrity 
Embedded SW Components Assembly 

58,534,998.22 

18,541,742.87 

9,775,344.70 

03/07/2009 

5,238,037.00 

1,670,457.00 

874,744.00 

18/06/2009 

11,919,387.44 

4,090,685.62 

1,990,537.70 

26/10/2009 

100012  eDIANA 

Embedded Systems for Energy Efficient Buildings 

17,330,469.00 

4,606,088.86 

2,894,188.33 

25/11/2009 

100036  EMMON 

EMbedded MONitoring 

2,576,278.00 

1,175,303.50 

428,067.42 

23/12/2009 

100026 

iLAND 

mIddLewAre for deterministic dynamically 
reconfigurable NetworkeD embedded systems 

100021 

INDEXYS 

INDustrial EXploitation of the genesYS cross-domain 
architecture 

100029  SCALOPES 

Common Embedded Security InfRAstructure SCAlable 
LOw Power Embedded platformS 

3,913,003.18 

1,547,632.79 

653,471.53 

23/10/2009 

7,344,281.00 

2,720,012.76 

1,226,494.94 

18/06/2009 

36,059,013.19 

10,751,328.08 

6,021,855.20 

29/05/2009 

100032  SMART 

Secure, Mobile visual sensor networks ArchiTecture 

4,457,865.00 

1,925,613.00 

744,464.00 

9/12/2009 

100017  SOFIA 

Smart Objects For Intelligent Applications 

36,540,109.00 

8,916,381.00 

6,102,198.20 

23/06/2009 

100035  SYSMODEL System Level Modeling Environment for SMEs 

5,362,900.00 

2,392,600.00 

895,200.00 

29/04/2009 

EN 

73 

EN 

 
  
5.2 

Call ARTEMIS-2009-1 

5.2.1 

Summary information 

The results arising from projects following the 2009 call were expected to demonstrate their 
contribution to the ARTEMIS-JU high-level objectives set out below. ARTEMIS has an over-
arching objective to close the design productivity gap between potential and capability, as a 
necessary pre-requisite to advancing Europe’s competitive position on the world market: 

•  Reduce the cost of the system design from 2005 levels by 15% by 2013; 
•  Achieve  15%  reduction  in  development  cycles  –  especially  in  sectors  requiring 

qualification or certification – by 2013; 

•  Manage a complexity increase of 25% with 10% effort reduction by 2013; 
•  Reduce  the  effort  and  time  required  for  re-validation  and  recertification  after  change  by 

15% by 2013; 

•  Achieve  cross-sectoral  reusability  of  Embedded  Systems  devices  developed  using  the 

ARTEMIS JU results. 

The  ARTEMIS  JTI  on  Embedded  Computing  Systems  should  address  the  design, 
development  and  deployment  of  ubiquitous,  interoperable  and  cost-effective,  powerful,  safe 
and secure electronics and software systems. It should deliver on 3 industrial priorities: 

•  Reference designs and architectures; 
•  Seamless connectivity and middleware; 
•  Design methods and tools. 

In  addition  to  the  industrial  priorities  ARTEMIS  JU  proposals  should  address  one  of  the  8 
specific ARTEMIS Sub-Programme (ASP) priorities for 2009, which are: 

•  ASP1. Methods and processes for safety-relevant embedded systems; 
•  ASP2. Person-centric health management; 
•  ASP3. Smart environments and scalable digital services; 
•  ASP4. Efficient manufacturing and logistics; 
•  ASP5. Computing environments for embedded systems; 
•  ASP6.  Security,  privacy  and  dependability  in  Embedded  Systems  for  applications, 

networks and services; 

•  ASP7. Embedded technology for sustainable urban life; 
•  ASP8. Human-centric design of embedded systems. 

Publication Date:  

OJ Reference:  

5 March 2009 

OJ C52 of 5 March 2009  

Closure dates: 
Deadline for submission of Project Outlines:  
Deadline for submission of Full Project Proposals:   3 September 2009  

15 April 2009  

Indicative Budgets: 

ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking:  
ARTEMIS Member States:  

37,086,500 €  
67,430,000 € 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Czech Republic  3 

Latvia 

ARTEMIS Member States (in M€) 

4 

Hungary 

1.98

Austria 

Belgium 

Cyprus 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

2.5 

Ireland 

0.35 Italy 

8 

Netherlands 

1.5  Norway 

0.3 

Portugal 

6 

6 

Romania 

Sweden 

4.5 

Slovenia 

1 

10 

0.5 

5 

1.5 

0.8 

0 

3 

1.5 

2 

United Kingdom 4 

Table 32: Funding per Member State 

5.2.2 

Analysis of proposals submitted 

The call 2009 was the first to operate in a two-phase mode. A Project Outline phase yielded 
56  proposals  (2  were  ineligible)  which  were  reviewed  and  feedback  given  to  the  proposers 
(the Project Outline phase is non-gating, but mandatory). For the Full Project Proposal phase, 
44  proposals  were  received  on  3  September  2009  and  evaluations  completed  on  2  October 
2009. 

Analysis of proposals from the PO phase 

The  total  requested  costs  for  the  54  proposals  were  585  M€.  The  total  requested  national 
funding  amounted  to  221  M€  and  the  total  requested  JU  funding  was  105  M€.  The  total 
requested funding by SME partners was 72 M€ (22%). The total number of participants was 
820. The data for proposals eligible for evaluation of the PO phase are detailed here: 

ASP8; 2

ASP7; 5

ASP6; 2

ASP5; 5

ASP4; 7

Other; 8; 1%

University; 156; 
19%

ASP1; 19

SME; 266; 32%

Research; 153; 
19%

ASP3; 8

ASP2; 8

Large; 237; 29%

Figure 15: Number of proposals 

Figure 16: Total number of participations 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
             
 
 
SME; 72.1; 22%

Other; 1.5; 0%

University; 64.8; 
20%

Large; 114.1; 
36%

Figure 17: Total requested funding 

160

140

120

100

80

60

103

105

79

50

Research; 72.9; 
22%

141

Participants

In number of proposals

38

29

21

19

12

10
8

7

40

36

20

13

0

34

34

33

32

20

16

17

13
8

18

14

9

15
9

10
5

1

1

3

3

4

2

2

1

37

39

29

18

13

6

5

2

2

Austria
Belgium

Denmark
Czech

Estonia

Finland

Germany
France

Hungary
Greece

Ireland

Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Romania
Portugal

Slovenia

Sweden UK
Spain

Slovakia

Others

Figure 18: Number of participants and proposals per country 

Analysis of proposals from the FPP phase 

The  total  requested  costs  for  the  44  proposals  were  574  M€.  The  total  requested  national 
funding  was  212  M€  and  the  total  requested  JU  funding  amounted  to  102  M€.  The  total 
requested funding by SME partners was 60 M€ (19 %). The total number of participants was 
834.  

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
 
The data for proposals eligible for evaluation of the FPP phase are detailed here: 

ASP8
7%

ASP7
15%

ASP1
25%

ASP6
11%

ASP5
16%

ASP4
9%

ASP2
8%

ASP3
9%

Figure 19: Distribution per ASP, all FPPs 

Figure 20: Participants by type 

   Figure 21: Total eligible costs per partner type 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
        
 
 
Figure 22: Requested national and ARTEMIS JU funding  

5.2.3 

Evaluation procedure  

The Call 2009 was the first to operate in a two-phase mode. For both Project Outline and Full 
Project Proposal phases the proposals were submitted electronically to the ARTEMIS JU via 
the ARTEMIS Proposal Submission system. The system allowed the participants to provide 
the  administrative  data  of  all  participants  and  upload  the  proposal  as  a  PDF  file.  After  the 
deadline all the data from the system was transmitted to the Commission proposal evaluation 
system RIvET.  

Project Outline phase: 56 proposals for research projects were submitted in response to the 
PO phase of this call, of which 54 satisfied the eligibility criteria. Feedback was provided to 
proposers  on  19  May  regarding  assessment  criteria  specified  in  the  call,  plus  information 
provided by national authorities on fulfilment of eligibility criteria for national funding. The 
submission  of  an  eligible  PO  was  mandatory  for  the  submission  of  the  subsequent  full 
proposal. 

Full  Project  Proposal  phase:  44  proposals  were  submitted  in  this  phase,  all  of  which 
satisfied  the  eligibility  criteria  for  Full  Project  Proposals.  The  evaluation  was  conducted 
according  to  the  rules  described  in  the  document  ARTEMIS  PAB-4/08:  "ARTEMIS  Joint 
Undertaking  selection  and  evaluation  procedures  related  to  Calls  for  Proposals".  Each 
proposal was initially evaluated remotely by four individual experts. This was followed by a 
panel  meeting  of  external  experts  under  the  chairmanship  of  both  the  Interim  Executive 
Director and the appointed Executive Director. The panel produced the final evaluation result 
for each proposal after an in-depth discussion on the basis of the 4 individual reports from the 
experts. Proposers were informed of the evaluation results on 20 October 2008. At this stage, 
24 proposals were evaluated above threshold (40 points minimum on a maximum of 60) and 
20 were evaluated below this selection threshold of 40 points. 

The 5 evaluation criteria are: 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Relevance and contributions to the objectives of the call; 

R&D innovation and technical excellence; 

S&T approach and work plan; 

Market innovation and market impact; 

Quality of consortium and management. 

Remote evaluation was done by in total 65 experts. Synthesis was done by one rapporteur per 
project.  Consolidation  and  calibration  of  evaluation  scores  were  performed  by  23  experts, 
meeting in Brussels from 28 September to 2 October 2009. Consolidation of the Evaluation 
Summary Reports (ESRs) was achieved through three sub-panels, chaired by one EC person 
plus one ARTEMIS JU person. Calibration of final scores in the ESRs was done in the final 
panel  discussion  chaired  by  the  Executive  Director,  assisted  by  the  Interim  Executive 
Director. 

5.2.4 

Evaluation results 

Out of the 44 proposals received 24 proposals were evaluated above threshold. Out of the 24 
13 projects were retained for negotiation, 6 projects on a reserve list, 5 projects not feasible 
financially  though  above  the  minimum  score  threshold.  20  projects  were  rejected,  as  they 
were below the selection threshold. Just prior to the Public Authorities Board and Governing 
Board  meeting  of  28  January  2010,  a  total  of  13  projects  had  successfully  completed  the 
negotiation phase. 

Overall, the Public Authorities Board allocated 101.9 M€ of public funds from the ARTEMIS 
Member States and the EC to 13 projects with a total cost of 207.7 M€. The 34.7 M€ of Union 
funding  resulted  in  a  leverage  effect  of  6  to  1.  National  budgets  published  in  the  call, 
subsequently  increased  by  some  countries  to  permit  strategically  important  projects  to  be 
funded, were allocated at 93.7% overall and the Union budget at 91.4%.  

The selected proposals covered the priority objectives of the call (safety-relevant embedded 
systems  for  transportation  and  automation,  smart  environments  and  digital  services  and 
embedded  computing  platforms)  in  a  very  satisfactory  manner.  The  areas  of  health, 
manufacturing  and  security  were  less  well  covered.  About  10.5  M€  of  funding  concerned 
projects related to safety critical systems (typically for transport applications), 15 million to 
industrial  efficiency  (manufacturing  and  logistics),  3  million  on  smart  environments  and 
digital  services,  and  38  million  were  earmarked  for  computing  architectures  projects.  An 
additional 13.5 million will be spent on work targeting energy reduction in urban areas and 7 
million on human-centric design. One project on "Health", with 5.8M€ funding, and one on 
secure digital services at 8.9 M€ funding completed the line-up. 

In  terms  of  project  size,  8  of  the  selected  proposals  could  be  classified  as  "large"  (eligible 
costs  >15  M€),  representing  79%  of  the  total  eligible  costs  for  this  call.  There  were  2 
"medium"  projects  (between  10  M€  and  15  M€)  representing  12%  of  costs,  and  3  "small" 
initiatives at 9% of total eligible costs. This demonstrated that both the R&D community of 
proposers  and  the  evaluation  and  selection  process  were  starting  to  favour  projects  that 
convincingly demonstrate a high level of impact.  

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
The  following  table  lists  the  results  of  the  successfully  negotiated  projects,  with  their  total 
eligible cost, national funding and ARTEMIS JU Funding. As information, the distribution of 
funding per participant type and the corresponding average funding rates are also given. 

Project 

ACROSS 

ASAM 

CHIRON 

eSONIA 

iFEST 

ME3GAS 

POLLUX 

pSHIELD 

R3-COP 

RECOMP 

SIMPLE 

Total eligible costs 
(in €) 

ARTEMIS JU 
funding (in €) 

National funding 
(in €) 

16,066,012.26  

2,683,024.05 

4,965,155.81  

5,829,365.00  

973,503.59 

1,786,001.40  

18,064,346.00  

3,016,745.78 

6,205,747.27  

12,084,895.75  

2,018,177.59 

4,801,982.88  

15,794,707.00  

2,637,716.07 

5,158,992.92  

15,732,529.20  

2,627,332.38 

2,717,219.47  

33,245,302.00  

5,551,965.43 

10,255,145.98  

5,392,809.07  

900,599.11 

1,522,774.16  

18,319,660.00  

3,059,384.58 

6,737,692.86  

25,772,220.00  

4,303,960.74 

9,339,154.66  

7,433,467.00  

1,241,388.00 

2,798,967.00  

SMARCOS 

13,461,741.00  

2,248,110.75 

4,420,052.11  

SMECY 

TOTAL 

20,537,505.00  

3,429,763.34 

6,513,371.00  

207,734,559.28  

34,691,671.40 

67,222,257.52  

Table 33: Total eligible costs, ARTEMIS JU- and national funding per project 

LE 

SME 

PRO 

Total 

Total eligible costs 

114,475,343.73  31,474,150.55  61,785,065.00   207,734,559.28 

ARTEMIS JU contribution 

19,117,383.58 

5,256,182.86  10,318,104.96  

34,691,671.40 

National funding 

26,758,077.38  11,346,614.52  29,117,565.62  

67,222,257.52 

Total funding 

45,875,460.96  16,602,797.38  39,435,670.58   101,913,928.92 

Total eligible costs 

National funding 

National funding rate 

Total funding rate 

55.1%

39.8%

23.4%

40.1%

15.2%

16.9%

36.1%

52.8%

29.7% 

43.3% 

47.1% 

63.8% 

(pct of total)

(pct of total)

32.4%

49.1%

*  LE:  Large  Enterprise.  SME:  Small-Medium  Enterprise.  PRO:  Public  Research  Organisation.  ARTEMIS  JU 
contribution fixed at 16.7% of eligible costs. 

Table 34: Funding breakdown per partner type, in € 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
  
 
   
In terms of the number of total participants, the projects selected for funding comprised a total 
of 295 participations, of which 124 were large enterprises, 63 were SMEs and 108 – public 
research organisations (universities and institutes). The following graph shows their relative 
distribution: 

PRO
37%

LE
42%

SME
21%

Figure 23: Distribution of participants involved in the proposals proposed for funding by type 
of organisation 

The following chart shows the breakdown by participant type in each country: 

Breakdown, participant type per country

s
n
o
i
t
a
p
i
c
i
t
r
a
P
r
N

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

PRO

SME

LE

IT

ES

DE

FR

NL

FI

CZ

AT

GB

SE GR

DK

NO BE

SI

IE

HU

PT

EE

LV

Figure 24: Participants type per country 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
In terms of the number of countries involved in each project, the following table shows  the 
count of partners' country in each project: 

Project 

ACROSS 
ASAM 
CHIRON 
eSONIA 
iFEST 
ME3GAS 
POLLUX 
pSHIELD 
R3-COP 
RECOMP 
SIMPLE 
SMARCOS 
SMECY 

Average: 

Number of 
countries 
4 
4 
8 
4 
8 
6 
10 
7 
11 
9 
8 
7 
9 
7.31 

Nr Countries in each project

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

R3-COP

POLLUX

RECOMP

SMECY

CHIRON

iFEST

SIMPLE

pSHIELD

SMARCOS

ME3GAS

ACROSS

ASAM

eSONIA

Table 35: Number of countries per project 

From  this  it  is  clear  that  the  ARTEMIS  programme  has  attracted  not  only  larger  initiatives, 
but has also lead to a higher degree of internationalisation of the projects, calling on expertise 
from  a  broader  base  of  European  participants.  No  project  has  the  strict  minimum  of  3 
participating countries, and the average of 7.3 countries per project is significantly higher than 
has been historically the case. 

5.2.5  Grant Agreements signed 

The consortia were invited to negotiations for establishing a Grant Agreement on 9 November 
9 2009. 13 projects were negotiated, of which 2 kicked off on 1 January, 1 – on 1 February, 4 
started in March, 4 – in April 2010, and the remaining 2 – in the course of 2010. There were 
therefore about 5 months between the call deadline and the possible start of the projects. This 
was an excellent result, comparing favourably to any R&D programme worldwide. 

Nonetheless,  delays  have  been  experienced  in  the  establishment  of  National  Grant 
Agreements  which  consequently  delayed  the  setting  up  of  the  ARTEMIS  JU  GAs,  some  of 
which  have  been  due  to  restructuring  within  certain  participants  (an  aftermath  of  the  recent 
economic  downturn).  The  delay  to  sign  the  JU-Grant  Agreement  was  very  short  once  the 
certificate of signature of a National Grant Agreement has been received.  

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 5: Table of projects for which Grant Agreements have been signed (in €)  

№ 

1 

2 

GA 
number 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

Total project 
costs 

Total national 
funding 

ARTEMIS JU 
funding 

Signature date 
(expected) 

100208 

ACROSS 

ARTEMIS CROSS-Domain Architecture 

16,066,012.26 

4,965,155.81 

2,683,024.05 

Q3 2010 

100265 

ASAM 

Automatic Architecture Synthesis and Application 
Mapping 

5,829,365.00 

1,786,001.40 

973,503.59 

Q3 2010 

3 

100228 

CHIRON 

Cyclic and person-centric Health management: 
Integrated appRoach for hOme, mobile and 
clinical eNvironments 

18,064,346.00 

6,205,747.27 

3,016,745.78 

Q4 2010 

4 

100223 

eSONIA 

Embedded Service Oriented Monitoring, 
Diagnostics and Control 

12,084,895.75 

4,801,982.88 

2,018,177.59 

Q3 2010 

5 

100203 

iFEST 

industrial Framework for Embedded Systems 
Tools 

15,794,707.00 

5,158,992.92 

2,637,716.07 

Q3 2010 

6 

100266 

ME3GAS 

Smart Gas Meters & Middleware for Energy 
Efficient Embedded Services 

15,732,529.20 

2,717,219.47 

2,627,332.38 

Q4 2010 

7 

100205 

POLLUX 

Process Oriented Electrical Control Units for 
Electrical Vehicles Developed on a Multi-system 
Real-time Embedded Platform 

33,245,302.00 

10,255,145.98 

5,551,965.43 

Q4 2010 

8 

100204 

pSHIELD 

pilot embedded Systems arcHItecturE for multi-
Layer Dependable solutions 

5,392,809.07 

1,522,774.16 

900,599.11 

Q4 2010 

9 

100233 

R3-COP 

Robust and Safe Reasoning Robotic Co-operative 
Systems 

18,319,660.00 

6,737,692.86 

3,059,384.58 

Q3 2010 

10 

100202 

RECOMP 

Reduced Certification Costs for Trusted Multi-
core Platforms 

25,772,220.00 

9,339,154.66 

4,303,960.74 

Q3 2010 

EN 

83 

EN 

 
  
№ 

GA 
number 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

Total project 
costs 

Total national 
funding 

ARTEMIS JU 
funding 

Signature date 
(expected) 

11 

100261 

SIMPLE 

Self-organizing Intelligent Middleware Platform 
for manufacturing and Logistics Enterprises 

7,433,467.00 

2,798,967.00 

1,241,388.00 

Q3 2010 

12 

100249 

SMARCOS 

SMART COMPOSITE HUMAN-COMPUTER 
INTERFACES 

13,461,741.00 

4,420,052.11 

2,248,110.75 

Q3 2010 

13 

100230 

SMECY 

Smart Multicore Embedded Systems: A holistic 
approach for the integration of multicore SoC and 
Embedded software 

20,537,505.00 

6,513,371.00 

3,429,763.34 

Q3 2010 

EN 

84 

EN 

 
  
6. 

PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY THE ENIAC JU 

Growing  out  of  the  ENIAC  European  Technology  Platform  (ETP),  the  ENIAC  Joint 
Undertaking  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  "ENIAC  JU")  was  established  in  2008  and  aims  to 
tackle the research and innovation in nanoelectronic technologies and smart components and 
their integration in smart systems faced by the industrial sector. The objective is to define and 
implement  a  Research  Agenda  for  nanoelectronics-based  systems.  ENIAC  JU  aims  to  help 
European industry consolidate and reinforce its world leadership nanoelectronics technologies 
and  systems.  The  European  Union  recognises  the  strategic  importance  of  nanoelectronics-
based systems and launched the ENIAC Joint Technology Initiative, declared nanoelectronics 
a  key  enabling  technology  with  systemic  character  and  included  nanoelectronics  in  the  Key 
Enabling Technologies Communication.  

The ENIAC JTI is implemented as a Joint Undertaking which is a public-private partnership 
between: 

•  The European Commission; 
•  Participating Member and Associated States, by now 21 countries; 
•  The  Association  for  European  Nanoelectronics  Activities  (AENEAS)  –  a  non-profit 

industrial association of R&D actors in the field of semiconductors. 

The  ENIAC  JU  shall  manage  and  co-ordinate  research  activities  through  open  Calls  for 
Proposals  through  a  10-year,  €  2.5  billion  research  programme  on  nanoelectronics-based 
systems. The programme  is  open  to  organisations in the EU Member States and Associated 
Countries.  Selected  projects  will  be  co-financed  by  the  Joint  Undertaking  and  the  Member 
States  that  have  joined  ENIAC.  The  ENIAC  JU  will  implement  significant  parts  of  the 
ENIAC-ETP  Strategic  Research  Agenda  co-funded  by  industry,  research  organisations, 
Member States and the Commission's own ICT programme.  

The ENIAC JU has managed one Call for Proposals in 2009. 

6.1 

Call ENIAC-2008-1 

6.1.1.  Grant Agreements signed 

The annex II for ENIAC in the 2009 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the 
2009  Annual  report  on  RTD  activities15  reporting  on  the  progress  made  in  2008  did  not 
include the list of projects for which Grant Agreements were signed in the 2008 call. The list 
of the 7 Grant Agreements which have been signed following this call is now available in the 
following annex: 

15 

SEC(2009)1380 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 6: Table of projects for which Grant Agreements have been signed in 2008 

№ 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

Application 
area 

Specific 
domain 

Number 
of 
partners 

Numbers 
of states 

Costs 
(in M€)

ENIAC 
JU 
funding 
(in M€) 

National 
funding 
(in M€) 

Date of 
signature 

1 

E3Car 

2 

SE2A 

3 

SmartPM 

4  MODERN 

5 

IMPROVE 

6 

7 

LENS 

JEMSiP_3D 

8  NEPTUNE 

Total 

Nanoelectronics for an energy 
efficient electrical car 

Nanoelectronics for safe, fuel 
efficient and environment friendly 
automotive solutions 

Smart power management in home 
and health 

Modelling and design of reliable, 
process variation-aware 
nanoelectronic devices, circuits and 
systems 

Implementing manufacturing 
science solutions to increase 
equipment productivity and fab 
performance 

Lithography process for beyond 
32nm manufacturing 

Joint equipment & materials for 
system-in-package and 3D 
integration 

Micro and nanotechnologies based 
on wide band gap materials for 
future transmitting receiving and 
sensing systems 

Automotive 

Electric car 

Automotive 

Energy 

Car safety & 
efficiency 

Power 
management 

Design 

Reliability 

33 

21 

18 

28 

11 

44,153 

7,373 

14,077 

20 Oct 2009 

7 

9 

21,656 

3,617 

7,338 

7 Oct 2009 

19,827 

3,311 

6,951 

30 Nov 
2009 

10 

27,363 

4,247 

7,870 

7 Dec 2009 

Manufacturing 

Productivity 

34 

Manufacturing 

Lithography 

Manufacturing  Heterogeneity 

12 

20 

Manufacturing  Heterogeneity 

10 

6 

5 

6 

6 

37,613 

6,010 

12,150 

30,562 

5,104 

6,495 

25,625 

4,279 

6,757 

29 May 
2009 

26 Nov 
2009 

14 Dec 
2009 

Cancelled 

176 

206,799

33,941 

61,638 

EN 

86 

EN 

 
  
 
 
6.2 

Call ENIAC-2009-1 

6.2.1 

Summary information 

The results arising from projects following the 2009 call have been expected to demonstrate 
their contribution to the ENIAC-JU high-level objectives.  

In  the  statutes  of  the  ENIAC  JU,  the  Multi-Annual  Strategic  Plan  (MASP)  defines  the 
strategy.  The  AENEAS  association  is  chartered  by  the  Industry  &  Research  Committee  to 
draft this MASP and adapt the plan as it evolves over time as a function of research priorities 
and stakeholder commitments. The selection of topics within the MASP is primarily along the 
axis  of  long-term  societal  needs  and  lead  markets.  The  six  societal  segments  identified  in 
2009 are: 1) Health & Wellness, 2) Transport & Mobility, 3) Security & Safety, 4) Energy & 
Environment,  5)  Communication,  and  6)  e-Society  (replacing  Infotainment  from  2008), 
leading  to  segmentation  in  six  application-specific  Sub-Programmes  in  the  MASP 
(respectively SP1 to SP6). Many of the challenges listed in the ENIAC's Strategic Research 
Agenda (SRA) technology domains can be mapped on the applications in these lead markets, 
notably topics from "More Moore", "More than Moore", and Heterogeneous Integration.  

It  should  be  recognised  that  commonalities  continue  to  exist  in  many  basic  technologies 
underlying the various application-specific Sub-Programmes. Also the priorities within these 
technologies can be the same, the difference being the timing or the level of maturity needed. 
However,  in  the  technology  domains  Design  Methods  and  Tools,  and  Equipment  and 
Materials,  cross-domain  and  cross-application  aspects  are  dominant.  Challenges  in  these 
domains can be better handled as generic enablers, serving all ENIAC societal needs and lead 
markets.  Therefore,  the  application-specific  Sub-Programmes  SP1  to  SP6  in  the  MASP  to 
cover the Research Agenda are complemented with two Sub-Programmes SP7 and SP8 that 
are technology-specific, bringing the total to eight.  

The mixture of technology- and application-driven Sub-Programmes guiding the 2009 call is 
covered  in  Figure  25,  seeking  maximum  synergy  between  the  various  application  Sub-
Programmes  while  at  the  same  time  recognising  their  individual  socio-economic  value  and 
their capability to drive wider technological progress.  

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
ENIAC JU MASP and RA
ENIAC JU MASP and RA
ENIAC JU MASP and RA

1
1
.
.

More Moore
More Moore

More than Moore
More than Moore

Heterogeneous Integration
Heterogeneous Integration

H
H
e
e
a
a
l
l
t
t
h
h
&
&
W
W
e
e

l
l
l
l

n
n
e
e
s
s
s
s

2
2
.
.

T
T
r
r
a
a
n
n
s
s
p
p
o
o
r
r
t
t

&
&
M
M
o
o
b
b

i
i
l
l
i
i
t
t
y
y

3
3
.
.

S
S
e
e
c
c
u
u
r
r
i
i
t
t
y
y
&
&
S
S
a
a
f
f
e
e
t
t
y
y

4
4
.
.

E
E
n
n
e
e
r
r
g
g
y
y
&
&
E
E
n
n
v
v
i
i
r
r
o
o
n
n
m
m
e
e
n
n
t
t

5
5
.
.

C
C
o
o
m
m
m
m
u
u
n
n
c
c
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n

i
i

6
6
.
.

e
e
-
-
S
S
o
o
c
c
e
e
t
t
y
y

i
i

Design Methods & Tools
Design Methods & Tools

7. Design Methods & Tools
7. Design Methods & Tools

Equipment & Materials
Equipment & Materials

8. Equipment & Materials
8. Equipment & Materials

Beyond CMOS
Beyond CMOS

Industry priorities for 2013 and beyond
Industry priorities for 2013 and beyond
Industry priorities for 2013 and beyond

Figure 25: Mapping the ENIAC JU Research Agenda on the SRA technology domains 

All  Sub-Programmes  are  open  in  the  2009  call.  However,  among  the  application  Sub-
Programmes, a specific approach was followed with respect to the topics already covered in 
2008 and those opened for the first time in 2009. Guiding principles in the Sub-Programme 
focusing were: 

•  To  identify  topics  of  sufficiently  wide  interest  to  justify  large-scale  cooperative  research 
projects, finalised to enable clearly identified applications, following the basic rationale for 
the JTI, which is to support projects for which “the scope of a RTD objective and the scale 
of  the  resources  involved  justify  setting  up  long-term  public-private  partnerships”16.  In 
2009, this applies to SP1, SP5 and SP6; 

•  To work on complementary, focused activities in relation to the topics covered by the large 

projects launched in 2008. This is done in SP2 and SP4; 

•  To  address  again  the  full  scope  of  SP3  given  the  lack  of  positive  results  in  this  field  in 

2008. 

This focused selection is large enough to allow a number of good proposals and also to allow 
all  Sub-Programmes  to  be  addressed  within  the  call  of  2009.  It  is  expected  that  future  calls 
will cover only a limited number of Sub-Programmes, but their selection will depend on the 
yearly evaluation of research priorities.  

To summarise, the priorities for the 2009 ENIAC Annual Work Programme as identified by 
the  Industry  and  Research  Committee  and  adopted  by  the  Public  Authorities  Board  of  the 
ENIAC JU on the basis of the guidance provided by the current MASP and field interviews 
within  representatives  of  the  AENEAS  members  and  other  stakeholders  in  the  Nano-

16 

DECISION  1982/2006/EC  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL 
concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological 
development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
electronics R&D ecosystem, covers 4 fully-fledged  application-oriented Sub-Programmes, 2 
limited application Sub-Programmes and the 2 technology-driven Sub-Programmes.  

Publication Date:  

OJ Reference:  

Closure dates: 

19 March 2009 

OJ C64 of 19 March 2009 

Deadline for submission of Project Outlines:  
Deadline for submission of Full Project Proposals:   3 September 2009  

6 May 2009  

Indicative Budgets: 

ENIAC Joint Undertaking:  
ENIAC Member States:  

37,053,500 € 
67,370,000 € 

ENIAC Member States (in M€) 

Austria 

Belgium 

4 Italy 

2.5 Netherlands 

Czech Republic 

1.5 Norway 

Estonia 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

0.3 Poland 

7 Portugal 

21 Slovak Republic 

1.5 Spain 

1.32 Sweden 

1 United Kingdom 1.5

12

7

1.5

1

0.5

0.5

2.25

1

Table 36: Funding per Member State 

6.2.2 

Analysis of proposals submitted 

Call 2009 was the first to operate in a two-phase mode. A Project Outline (PO) phase yielded 
27 proposals (none were ineligible) which were reviewed and feedback given to the proposers 
(the Project Outline phase is non-gating, but mandatory). For the Full Project Proposal phase, 
21 proposals were received on 3 September 2009 and evaluations completed on 30 September 
2009.  

Analysis of proposals from the PO phase 

The total requested costs for the 27 proposals were 766.6 M€. The total requested for national 
funding amounted to 243.75 M€ and the total requested ENIAC JU funding was 128.3 M€. 
The total number of SME partners was 152 or 27% with a total number of participants of 574. 

The data for proposals eligible for evaluation of the Project Outline phase are detailed here: 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Coverage by PO

27

3

8

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

SP1

SP1/SP2/SP4/SP6

SP1/SP4/SP6

SP1/SP6

SP2/SP4

SP3

SP4/SP6

SP5

SP7

SP8

PAB  290509

ENIAC JOINT UNDERTAKING - 6

6

Figure 26: Number of proposals per Sub-Programme 

Overview of costs

Sum of Total eligible costs

766.6 M€

350 M€

300 M€

250 M€

200 M€

150 M€

100 M€

50 M€

0

8
P
S

7
P
S

1
P
S

5
P
S

3
P
S

/

6
P
S
4
P
S

/

6
P
S
1
P
S

/

4
P
S
2
P
S

/

6
P
S
4
P
S
1
P
S

/

/

6
P
S
4
P
S
2
P
S
1
P
S

/

/

PAB  290509

ENIAC JOINT UNDERTAKING - 16

Sub-programme

Figure 27: Total costs per Sub-Programme 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
 
 
Participants by SP

Count of Participant

574 #

250

200

150

100

50

0

1
P
S

6
P
S
/
4
P
S
/
2
P
S
/
1
P
S

6
P
S
/
4
P
S
/
1
P
S

6
P
S
/
1
P
S

4
P
S
/
2
P
S

3
P
S

6
P
S
/
4
P
S

5
P
S

7
P
S

8
P
S

Sub-programme

PAB  290509

ENIAC JOINT UNDERTAKING - 19

Figure 28: Number of participants per Sub-Programme 

Participants by nationality

Count of Participant

574 #

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

AT BE BG CH CZ DE ES FI

FR GB GR HU IE

IL

IT

LU NL NO PL PT RO SE SK

PAB  290509

ENIAC JOINT UNDERTAKING - 20

Participant country code

Figure 29: Number of participants per Member State 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
 
 
Participants by type

39; 7%

78; 14%

166; 28%

industry - large

industry - SME

research

higher education

other

136; 24%

PAB  290509

ENIAC JOINT UNDERTAKING - 22

152; 27%

Figure 30: Number of participants by type 

National distribution

766.6 M€

300 M€

250 M€

200 M€

150 M€

100 M€

50 M€

0 €

Costs

Nat'l funding

JU funding

AT BE BG CH CZ DE ES FI FR GB GR HU IE IL IT LU NL NO PL PT RO SE SK

PAB  290509

ENIAC JOINT UNDERTAKING - 17

Figure 31: National distribution 

Analysis of proposals from the FPP phase 

The total requested costs for the 21 proposals eligible for evaluation in the second stage were 
558.1 M€. The total requested national funding amounted to 163.1 M€ and the total requested 
ENIAC JU funding was 93 M€. The total requested funding by SME partners was 48.9 M€ 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
 
 
(19  %).  The  total  number  of  participants  was  451.  The  data  for  proposals  eligible  for 
evaluation of the FPP phase are detailed here: 

Total eligible costs by Thematic area

SP4/SP6/SP8
5%

SP1
10%

SP1/SP6
6%

SP8
40%

Total: € 558 M€  

SP7
15%

SP3
3%

SP5
21%

Figure 32: Total costs by thematic area 

Total eligible costs by type of participant

SMEs
18% - 100,4 M€

Research org.
14% - 78,1 M€

Large Ind.
60% - 335 M€

High Educ.
8% - 44,6 M€

451 participants from 
293 different organisations 

Figure 33: Total costs by type of participant 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
National contribution by type of participant

SMEs 
19% - 31 M€

Large Ind.

45% - 73.4 M€

Research org.

22% - 35.9 M€

High Educ.
14% - 22.8 M€

Figure 34: Distribution of costs  

Req Nat funding

Tot eligible costs

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Czech Republic
Belgium
Estonia
Austria

Germany
France

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

The Netherlands
Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovakia

United Kingdom
Spain
Sweden

Figure 35: Requested national funding per ENIAC Member State 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Requested Public funding

Req Nat funding

Req JU funding

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Czech Republic
Belgium
Estonia
Austria

Germany
France

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

The Netherlands
Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovakia

United Kingdom
Spain
Sweden

Figure 36: Requested public funding 

Partners per country

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

AT BE CZ FR DE GR HU IE IT NL NO PL PT ES SE GB BG FI

IL

LU RO SK CH

Figure 37: Partners per country 

6.2.3 

Evaluation procedure  

The call 2009 was the first to operate in a two-phase mode. For both Project Outline and Full 
Project Proposal phases the proposals were submitted electronically to the ENIAC JU via the 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ENIAC  Proposal  Submission  system.  The  system  allowed  the  participants  to  provide  the 
administrative  data  of  all  participants  and  upload  the  proposal  as  a  PDF  file.  After  the 
deadline all the data from the system was transmitted to the Commission proposal evaluation 
system RIvET.  

Project Outline phase: 27 proposals for research projects were submitted in response to the 
PO phase of this call, of which all satisfied the eligibility criteria. Feedback was provided to 
proposers  during  May  regarding  assessment  criteria  specified  in  the  call,  plus  information 
provided by national authorities on fulfilment of eligibility criteria for national funding. The 
submission of an eligible Project Outline was mandatory for the submission of the subsequent 
full proposal. 

Full Project Proposal phase: 21 FPPs were submitted in this phase, all of which satisfied the 
eligibility criteria for Full Project Proposals. The evaluation was conducted according to the 
rules  described  in  document  ENIAC  PAB-4/08:  "ENIAC  Joint  Undertaking  selection  and 
evaluation procedures related to Calls for Proposals". Each proposal was initially evaluated 
by four individual experts. This was followed by a panel meeting of external experts under the 
chairmanship  of  the  Interim  Executive  Director.  The  panel  produced  the  final  evaluation 
result for each proposal after an in-depth discussion  on the  basis of the 4 individual reports 
from the experts. Proposers were informed of the evaluation results during October 2009. At 
this stage, 19 proposals were evaluated above threshold (40 points minimum on a maximum 
of 60) and 2 were evaluated below this selection threshold of 40 points or the threshold of the 
individual criteria. 

The 5 evaluation criteria are: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Relevance and contributions to the objectives of the call; 

R&D innovation and technical excellence; 

S&T approach and work plan; 

Market innovation and market impact; 

Quality of consortium and management. 

Remote evaluation was done by in total 20 experts. Synthesis was done by one rapporteur per 
project.  Consolidation  and  calibration  of  evaluation  scores  were  performed  by  20  experts, 
meeting in Brussels from 28 September to 30 September 2009. Calibration of final scores in 
ESRs was done in the final panel discussion chaired by the Interim Executive Director with 
the involvement of the Executive Director. 

6.2.4 

Evaluation results 

Out of the 21 proposals received 19 proposals were evaluated above threshold. Out of those 
19,  11  projects  were  retained  for  negotiation,  no  projects  were  placed  on  a  reserve  list,  8 
projects were not feasible financially though above the minimum score threshold. 2 projects 
were  rejected  as  they  were  below  the  selection  threshold.  All  11  projects  have  successfully 
completed the negotiation phase. The success rate was 52.4%. 

Overall,  the  Public  Authorities  Board  allocated  102.4  M€  of  public  funds  from  the  ENIAC 
Member States and the EC to the 11 proposals proposed for funding with a total cost of 244.1 
M€. The 40.6 M€ of Union funding resulted in a leverage effect of 6 to 1. National budgets 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
published  in  the  call  subsequently  increased  by  some  countries  to  permit  strategically 
important projects to be funded, were allocated at 94.7% overall. The Union indicative budget 
foreseen  when  publishing  the  call  was  increased  by  9%,  following  an  increase  of  some 
Member States and to permit some important activities to be funded. 

The  selected  proposals  covered  the  priority  objectives  of  the  call  in  a  very  satisfactory 
manner.  The  area  of  Health  and  Wellness  was  covered  by  2  projects  (37  M€  cost)  dealing 
with diagnostics and imaging. Security have been covered by 1 proposal dealing with secure 
memories  and  applications-related  technologies  (16.6  M€).  A  project  on  solid  state  lighting 
(27  M€)  covered  the  Sub-Programme  on  Energy,  while  2  proposals  on  mm-wave  and  RF 
applications  covered  the  Sub-Programme  on  Communication  (52  M€).  Several  projects 
partially addressed e-Society topics, but one has explicitly addressed ambient-assisted living 
(27.3  M€).  Four  projects  addressed  the  horizontal  Sub-Programmes  Design  Methods  and 
Tools  and  Equipment,  Materials  and  Manufacturing:  models,  methods  and  tools  for  energy 
aware  design  (13  M€),  large  area  silicon  carbide  and  GaN  substrates  for  power  device 
applications  (16  M€),  450  mm  manufacturing  (18  M€)  and  multi-chip  System-in-a-Package 
integration (36 M€). The Sub-Programme on Mobility was not covered by funded projects out 
of this call, but 2 large projects were launched in the previous call in this field. All projects 
launched in this call have been complementary to projects launched in the first call. 

The  following  table  lists  the  results  of  the  successfully  negotiated  projects,  with  their  total 
eligible  costs,  national  funding  and  ENIAC  JU  funding.  As  information,  the  distribution  of 
funding per participant type and the corresponding average funding rates are also given. 

Total eligible 
costs 

ENIAC JU 
funding 

National 
funding* 

Project 

CSSL 

MERCURE 

CSI 

ESiP 

EEMI 450 

MAS 

CAJAL4EU 

27,092,149 

3,297,691 

14,773,010 

36,085,278 

18,361,170 

28,970,122 

22,272,620 

MIRANDELA 

50,400,246 

SMART 

END 

14,304,499 

15,476,068 

LAST POWER 

13,114,285 

4,524,389

550,714

2,467,093

6,026,241

3,066,315

4,838,010

3,592,349

8,416,841

2,388,851

2,584,503

2,190,086

7,480,261 

938,766 

4,330,294 

9,768,768 

4,861,757 

9,783,911 

7,606,398 

6,951,276 

3,791,716 

3,910,186 

2,378,436 

TOTAL 

244,147,138 

40,645,393

61,801,770 

* National funding may slightly change pending on the establishment of Grant Agreements. 

Table 37: Total eligible costs, ENIAC JU- and national funding per project (in €) 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
LE 

SME 

PRO 

Total 

Total eligible costs 

143,180,770 

35,317,864 

65,648,504 

244,147,138 

ENIAC JU contribution 

23,911,189 

5,770,904 

10,963,300 

40,645,393 

National funding 

27,657,219 

8,465,450 

25,679,101 

61,801,770 

Total funding 

51,568,407 

14,236,354 

36,642,401 

102,447,163 

Total eligible costs 

National funding 

National funding rate 

Total funding rate 

58.6% 

44.7% 

19.3% 

36.0% 

14.5% 

13.7% 

24.0% 

40.3% 

26.9% 

41.6% 

39.1% 

55.8% 

(pct of total) 

(pct of total) 

25.3% 

41.0% 

*  LE:  Large  Enterprise.  SME:  Small-Medium  Enterprise.  PRO:  Public  Research  Organisation.  ENIAC  JU 
contribution fixed at 16.7% of eligible costs. 

Table 38: Funding breakdown per partner type (in €) 

In terms of number of total participants, the projects selected for funding comprised a total of 
250  participations,  of  which  83  were  large  enterprises,  62  were  SMEs  and  105  were  public 
research organisations (universities and institutes). The following graph shows their relative 
distribution: 

Figure 38: Relative distribution of participants by type 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
  
 
 
The following chart shows the breakdown by participant type in each country: 

Participant type per country

s
t
n
a
p
i
c
i
t
r
a
P

.

N

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

PRO

SME

LE

DE FR IT NL ES AT BE GB GR HU FI NO CZ IE SE PL SK CH RO

Figure 39: Participant types per country 

From the total eligible costs of the different projects – most were 15 M€ or more, it is clear 
that  the  ENIAC  programme  has  attracted  larger  initiatives,  much  larger  than  the  traditional 
nanoelectronics projects in the 7th Framework Programme, calling on expertise from a broader 
base of European participants. The larger industrial participation makes this type of projects 
distinct  from  the  traditional  FP7  projects,  while  the  broader  European  participation  makes 
these projects different from the traditional Eureka projects.  

6.2.5  Grant Agreements signed 

All  11  consortia  were  invited  to  negotiations  for  establishing  a  Grant  Agreement  on  9 
November  2009.  One  project  was  kicked  off  on  1  January,  one  –  on  1  February,  3  projects 
started  in  March,  3  –  in  April  2010  and  3  –  in  May  2010.  There  were  therefore  about  5 
months  between  the  call  deadline  and  the  possible  start  of  projects.  This  was  an  excellent 
result, comparing favourably to any R&D programme worldwide.  

Nonetheless,  delays  have  been  experienced  in  the  establishment  of  National  Grant 
Agreements which consequently delayed the setting-up of the ENIAC JU Grant Agreements, 
some of which have been due to restructuring within certain participants (an aftermath of the 
recent  economic  downturn).  The  delay  to  sign  the  ENIAC  JU  Grant  Agreements  was  very 
short  once  the  certificate  of  signature  of  a  National  Grant  Agreement  has  been  received. 
Consortia  experienced  also  difficulties  in  coming  to  a  Project  Consortium  Agreement. 
Although this was a legal requirement it appeared to be very difficult to finalise this in less 
than one year.  

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
 
 
Annex 7: Table of projects for which Grant Agreements were expected to be signed 

№ 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

Total project 
costs (in €) 

Total national 
funding (in €) 

ENIAC JU 
funding (in €) 

Signature date 
(expected) 

1  CSSL 

Solid State Lighting 

27,092,149 

7,480,261 

4,524,389 

August 2010 

2  MERCURE 

Wide band gap materials for transmitting and 
receiving systems 

3,297,691 

938,766 

550,714 

August 2010 

3  CSI 

4  ESiP 

Central nervous imaging 

14,773,010 

4,330,294 

2,467,093 

October 2010 

Multi-chip system-in-a-package integration 

36,085,278 

9,768,768 

6,026,241 

August 2010 

5  EEMI 450 

450 mm equipment and materials 

18,361,170 

4,861,757 

3,066,315 

August 2010 

6  MAS 

Nanoelectronics for mobile AAL-systems 

28,970,122 

9,783,911 

4,838,010 

August 2010 

7 

CAJAL4 
EU 

Chip architectures for EU diagnostics 

22,272,620 

7,606,398 

3,592,349 

August 2010 

8  MIRANDELA 

Mm-wave and RF integration for wireless 
communications 

50,400,246 

6,951,276 

8,416,841 

August 2010 

9 

SMART 

Secure memories and related applications 

14,304,499 

3,791,716 

2,388,851 

September 2010 

10  END 

Models, solutions, methods and tools for energy 
aware design 

15,476,068 

3,910,186 

2,584,503 

October 2010 

11  LAST POWER 

Large area SiC and GaN for power devices 

13,114,285 

2,378,436 

2,190,086 

October 2010 

EN 

100 

EN