COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Annual Report on the progress achieved by the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint Undertakings in 2010
Date: 2012-04-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, aeronautical industry, air quality, joint venture, nanotechnology, new technology, pharmacology, renewable energy, research and development

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 27.4.2012  
SWD(2012) 105 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Annual Report on the progress achieved by the Joint Technology Initiatives Joint 
Undertakings in 2010 

{COM(2012) 190 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................ 5 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 7 

PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY THE CLEAN SKY JU ........................................... 8 

2.1. 

About the CS JU......................................................................................................... 8 

2.2.  Main activities of the CS JU in 2010......................................................................... 9 

2.3. 

Calls for proposals.................................................................................................... 12 

2.3.1. 

Submission and evaluation process ........................................................................... 12 

2.3.2.  Calls launched in 2009 and 2010............................................................................... 14 

2.4. 

Call 2 SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02 ..................................................................................... 16 

2.4.1. 

Summary information................................................................................................. 16 

2.4.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 19 

2.4.3.  Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 19 

2.4.4.  Grant agreements signed ........................................................................................... 20 

2.5. 

Call 3 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 ..................................................................................... 23 

2.5.1. 

Summary information................................................................................................. 23 

2.5.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 27 

2.5.3.  Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 27 

2.5.4.  Grant agreements signed ........................................................................................... 28 

2.6. 

Call 4 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02 ..................................................................................... 33 

2.6.1. 

Summary information................................................................................................. 33 

2.6.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 34 

2.6.3.  Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 34 

2.6.4.  Grant agreements signed ........................................................................................... 34 

2.7. 

Call 5 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03 ..................................................................................... 35 

2.7.1. 

Summary information................................................................................................. 35 

2.7.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 38 

2.7.3.  Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 38 

2.7.4.  Grant agreements signed ........................................................................................... 39 

2.8. 

Call 6 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04 ..................................................................................... 43 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
2.8.1. 

Summary information................................................................................................. 43 

2.8.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 46 

2.8.3.  Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 46 

2.8.4.  Grant agreements signed ........................................................................................... 47 

2.9. 

Call 7 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05 ..................................................................................... 50 

2.9.1. 

Summary information................................................................................................. 50 

2.9.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 53 

2.9.3.  Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 53 

3. 

PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY THE INNOVATIVE MEDICINES INITIATIVE 
(IMI) JU .................................................................................................................... 54 

3.1. 

About the IMI JU ..................................................................................................... 54 

3.2.  Main activities of the IMI JU in 2010..................................................................... 55 

3.3. 

Call 2 IMI_Call_2009_2........................................................................................... 59 

3.3.1. 

Summary information................................................................................................. 59 

3.3.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 61 

3.3.3.  Evaluation procedure................................................................................................. 62 

3.3.4.  Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 65 

3.3.5.  Grant agreements signed ........................................................................................... 67 

3.4. 

Call 3 IMI_Call_2010_3........................................................................................... 69 

3.4.1. 

Summary information................................................................................................. 69 

4. 

PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY THE FUEL CELLS AND HYDROGEN (FCH) 
JU............................................................................................................................... 71 

4.1. 

About the FCH JU ................................................................................................... 71 

4.2.  Main activities of the FCH JU in 2010 ................................................................... 72 

4.3. 

Call 2 FCH-JU-2009-1 ............................................................................................. 77 

4.3.1. 

Summary information................................................................................................. 77 

4.3.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 77 

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

4.3.4.  Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 78 

4.3.5.  Grant agreements signed ........................................................................................... 80 

4.4. 

Call 3 FCH-JU-2010-1 ............................................................................................. 84 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
4.4.1. 

Summary information................................................................................................. 84 

4.4.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 86 

4.4.3.  Evaluation procedure................................................................................................. 87 

4.4.4.  Evaluation results....................................................................................................... 87 

4.4.5.  Grant agreements signed ........................................................................................... 88 

5. 

PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY THE ARTEMIS JU .............................................. 93 

5.1. 

About the ARTEMIS JU ......................................................................................... 93 

5.2.  Main activities of the ARTEMIS JU in 2010 ......................................................... 93 

5.3. 

Call 3 ARTEMIS-2010-1 ......................................................................................... 96 

5.3.1. 

Summary information................................................................................................. 96 

5.3.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted................................................................................. 98 

5.3.3.  Evaluation procedure............................................................................................... 103 

5.3.4.  Evaluation results..................................................................................................... 104 

5.3.5.  Grant agreements signed ......................................................................................... 106 

6. 

PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY THE ENIAC JU.................................................. 109 

6.1. 

About the ENIAC JU ............................................................................................. 109 

6.2.  Main activities of the ENIAC JU in 2010............................................................. 109 

6.3. 

Call 3 ENIAC-2010-1 ............................................................................................. 112 

6.3.1. 

Summary information............................................................................................... 112 

6.3.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted............................................................................... 113 

6.3.3.  Evaluation procedure............................................................................................... 114 

6.3.4.  Evaluation results..................................................................................................... 114 

6.3.5.  Grant agreements signed ......................................................................................... 117 

7. 

8. 

CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 119 

REFERENCES....................................................................................................... 120 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 

AA 

ABAC 

ACARE 

Application Area 

Accrual Based Accounting System  

Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe 

AENEAS  

Association for European Nanoelectronics Activities 

ARTEMIS-IA 

ARTEMIS Industrial Association 

ASP 

CATRENE 

CHP 

CMOS 

CP 

CS 

DG 

ARTEMIS Sub-Programme  

Cluster for Application and Technology Research in Europe on 
Nanoelectronics 

Combined Heat & Power 

Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor  

Collaborative Project 

Clean Sky 

Directorate-General 

DG INFSO 

Directorate-General for Information Society and Media 

DG RTD 

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 

EC 

ED 

EFPIA 

EFTA 

EoI 

EPSS 

ETP 

EU 

FCH 

FP7 

FPP 

GA 

GAM 

GAP 

GRA 

GRC 

European Commission 

Eco-Design 

European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Association 

European Free Trade Association 

Expression of Interest 

Electronic Proposal Submission Service  

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 for Members 

Grant Agreement for Partners 

Green Regional Aircraft 

Green Rotorcraft 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
IAS 

ICAS 

ICT 

IMI 

IP 

IRC 

IT 

ITD 

JTI 

JU 

NEF 

Internal Audit Service 

International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences 

Information and Communications Technologies 

Innovative Medicines Initiative 

Intellectual property 

Industry and Research Committee 

Information Technologies 

Integrated Technology Demonstrator 

Joint Technology Initiative 

Joint Undertaking 

Negotiation Form Facility 

NEW-IG 

New Energy World Industry Grouping 

NGA 

NGO 

NSRG 

OJ 

PAB 

PO 

PPP 

PRO 

R&D  

RTD 

S&T 

SA 

SAGE 

National Grant Agreement 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

National States Representatives Group 

Official Journal of the European Union 

Public Authorities Board 

Project Outline 

Public-private partnership 

Public Research Organisations 

Research & Development 

Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 

Scientific & Technological Excellence 

Coordination and Support Action 

Sustainable and Green Engines 

SET-Plan 

European Strategic Energy Technology Plan 

SFWA 

SGO 

SME 

STAB 

TE 

UK 

USA 

Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft 

Systems for Green Operations 

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise 

Scientific and Technological Advisory Board  

Technology Evaluator 

United Kingdom 

United States of America 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  present  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  accompanies  the  Report  from  the 
Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the progress achieved by the 
Joint Technology Initiatives Joint Undertakings in 2010. In compliance with Article 11 (1) of 
each  Council  Regulation  establishing  the  Joint  Technology  Initiatives  Joint  Undertakings 
(hereinafter  referred  to  as  "JTI  JUs")  it  shall  provide  details  on  the  implementation  of  their 
research  activities,  i.e.  number  of  proposals  submitted,  number  of  proposals  selected  for 
funding, type of participants, including SMEs, and country statistics. The document shall also 
"include  assessment  results  of  the  Technology  Evaluator  referred  to  in  Article  8(1)  of  the 
Statutes  [of  the  Clean  Sky  JU],  as  appropriate"  pursuant  to  Article  11(1)  of  Council 
Regulation (EC) 71/2008 setting up the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking. 

The  data  contained  in  this  document  is  gathered  through  a  specifically  designed  template, 
filled in by each JTI JU under the guidance of the European Commission. It is divided into 
five main sections, one per Joint Undertaking. Each section contains the following three sub-
sections providing information on the JTI JUs' activities in 2010 in a structured and uniform 
way: 1) About the JTI JU, 2) Main activities in 2010, and 3) Calls for proposals. 

The  description  of  the  progress  of  each  Joint  Undertaking  throughout  the  year  starts  with  a 
short introduction of the JTI JU, outlining its legal basis, main objectives, research priorities, 
funding and governing structure. The second sub-section highlights the key achievements of 
the entity in 2010, both from operational and administrative perspective. The submission and 
evaluation process of the individual JTI JUs used in the calls is also schematically explained.  

The last sub-section is dedicated to the calls for proposals launched by the Joint Undertakings 
in 2010. In case the entity has launched multiple calls during the year, each call is described in 
a  separate  sub-section.  The  call's  presentation  starts  with  a  brief  summary  listing  the  call 
topics,  eligible  beneficiaries,  timeline  and  indicative  budget.  This  is  followed  by  detailed 
statistics  on  the  submitted  proposals  by  types  of  participants  and  by  country.  A  special 
attention  is  given  to  the  number  of  SMEs,  whose  participation  in  the  call  is  presented 
separately.  

The  evaluation  procedure  is  also  described,  giving  information  on  the  evaluation  criteria, 
scoring  and  weighting  of  the  proposals,  composition  of  the  evaluation  committees  and  the 
evaluation steps that have been followed. Detailed statistics on the selected proposals by types 
of participants and by country are provided, which can serve for a comparative analysis of the 
participants  at  the  different  steps  of  the  call.  The  sub-section  ends  with  a  table  giving 
information on the grant agreements signed in the respective call.  

Among the five JTI JUs, only the presentation of the Clean Sky's calls for proposals follows a 
slightly  different  structure  to  avoid  repeating  of  information,  because  the  Joint  Undertaking 
publishes  several  calls  per  year  following  the  same  steps  for  submission  and  evaluation  of 
proposals.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
2. 

PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY THE CLEAN SKY JU 

2.1. 

About the CS JU 

The Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as "CS JU") has been established by 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  71/2008  of  20  December  2007  as  a  public-private  partnership 
between  the  aeronautic  industry,  represented  by  the  leaders  of  the  Integrated  Technology 
Demonstrators  (ITDs)1  and  their  associates,  and  the  European  Union,  represented  by  the 
European Commission.  

The  ITD  leaders  are  twelve  industrial  organisations  that  jointly  committed  to  perform, 
complete  and  exploit  the  Clean  Sky  programme2.  Each  of  them  leads  or  co-leads  a  specific 
Integrated  Technology  Demonstrator.  The  associate  members  are  seventy-four  private  or 
public  organisations  representing  industry,  academia,  SMEs  and  research  centres,  selected 
through  a  transparent  and  fair  process  as  permanent  members  of  the  Clean  Sky  JU.  They 
committed to perform and complete certain essential work packages in one or more ITDs for 
the duration of Clean Sky. 

The CS JU has been set up for a period up to 31 December 2017 with the main objective to 
develop environmental technologies impacting all flying segments of commercial aviation in 
order to contribute to the ACARE targets3 for reduction of emissions and noise in air transport 
in Europe4, thus contributing to improving the air transport system worldwide.  

The objective of the Clean Sky JU is achieved through coordination of research activities that 
pool  resources  from  the  public  and  private  sectors,  and  that  are  carried  out  by  the  main 
aeronautical  stakeholders  (ITD  leaders  and  associates)  directly  and  by  partners  selected 
through open and competitive calls for proposals.  

The  CS  JU  is  built  upon  six  different  technical  areas  called  Integrated  Technology 
Demonstrators, which develop innovative technologies covering all segments of commercial 
aviation. Each ITD is led by two founding members and operates through a matrix structure. 
The ITDs are listed below: 

(1) 

Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) led by Airbus and SAAB – focused on active wing 
technologies that sense the airflow and adapt their shape as required, as well as on new 
aircraft configurations to optimally incorporate these novel wing concepts; 

1 

2 

3 

4 

According  to  Article  1  of  the  Clean  Sky's  Statutes,  the  Integrated  Technology  Demonstrators  (ITDs) 
refer to the six technological areas covered by the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking.  

The  founding  ITD  leaders  of  the  Clean  Sky  JU  are:  Agusta-Westland,  Airbus,  Alenia,  Dassault 
Aviation,  EADS-CASA,  Eurocopter,  Fraunhofer  Gesellschaft,  Liebherr,  Rolls-Royce,  SAAB,  Safran 
and Thales.  

In 2001, the Advisory Council for Aeronautical Research in Europe (ACARE) set the following targets 
for the aeronautics industry by 2020: 50% reductions of the fuel consumption and the carbon dioxide 
emissions,  80%  reduction  of  the  nitrous  oxides  emissions,  50%  reduction  of  the  perceived  external 
noise and improvement of the environmental impact of the lifecycle of aircraft and related products. 

Europe  in  this  context  refers  to  the  EU  Member  States  and  the  countries  associated  to  the  Seventh 
Framework Programme of the European Union (2007-2013), i.e. Switzerland, Israel, Norway, Iceland, 
Liechtenstein,  Turkey,  Croatia,  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Serbia,  Albania, 
Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Faroe Islands (December 2010). 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

Green  Regional  Aircraft  (GRA)  led  by  Alenia  Aeronautica  and  EADS-CASA  – 
dealing with low-weight configurations and technologies using smart structures, low-
noise configurations; 

Green  Rotorcraft  (GRC)  led  by  Agusta-Westland  and  Eurocopter  –  focused  on 
innovative  rotor  blades  and  engine  installation  for  noise  reduction,  lower  airframe 
drag,  diesel  engine  and  electrical  systems  for  fuel  consumption  reduction  and 
environment-friendly flight paths; 

Sustainable and Green Engines (SAGE) led by Rolls-Royce and Safran – integrating 
technologies for low noise and lightweight low pressure systems, high efficiency, low 
nitrous oxides and low weight core; 

Systems for Green Operations (SGO) led by Thales Avionics and Liebherr Aerospace 
–  coping  with  all-electric  aircraft  equipment  and  systems  architectures,  thermal 
management, capabilities for green trajectories and improved ground operations; 

Eco-Design (ED) led by Dassault Aviation and Fraunhofer Gesellschaft – addressing 
the full lifecycle of materials and components, focusing on issues such as optimal use 
of  raw  materials,  decreasing  the  use  of  non-renewable  materials,  natural  resources, 
energy, the emission of noxious effluents and recycling. 

Multiple links for coherence and data exchange is ensured between the different ITDs. 

Complementing  these  six  ITDs,  the  Technology  Evaluator  (TE)  is  a  dedicated  evaluation 
platform  cross-positioned  within  the  CS  project  structure.  The  TE  is  co-led  by  DLR  and 
Thales  and  includes  major  European  aeronautical  research  organisations  as  members.  Its 
objective is to assess the environmental impact of the technologies developed by the ITDs and 
to assess the result of the overall Clean Sky's project output.  

The total budget of the CS JU is equally divided between the EU and its private members and 
is set to a maximum of € 1.6 billion. The EU  contribution of € 800 million is paid from the 
budget  appropriation  allocated 
the  Specific  Programme 
"Cooperation"  under  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  (FP7)  of  the  European  Union 
(2007-2013)5. 

theme  "Transport"  of 

to 

The  CS  JU  governance  is  composed  of  three  bodies:  the  Governing  Board,  the  Executive 
Director and the ITD Steering Committees. It is also supported by three advisory groups: the 
Scientific  and  Technological  Advisory  Board  (STAB),  the  National  States  Representatives 
Group (NSRG) and the General Forum. 

2.2.  Main activities of the CS JU in 2010 

After  its  establishment,  Clean  Sky  gradually  developed  an  operational  capacity,  and  on  16 
November  2009  has  been  granted  administrative  and  operational  autonomy  from  the 

5 

Decision  1982/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  December  2006 
concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological 
development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
European Commission6. Thus, 2010 was the first full year of independent functioning of the 
Joint Undertaking. 

Key milestones 

•  Publication and evaluation of the five CS JU's calls for proposals in 2010 as planned; 

•  Amendment  to  the  model  Grant  Agreement  for  Partners  (GAP)  and  the  model  Grant 

Agreement for Members (GAM); 

•  Internal processes definition and mapping; 

•  Set-up  of  a  Scientific  and  Technological  Advisory  Board  in  the  Clean  Sky's  governance 

structure; 

•  Establishment of Internal Audit Plan and Ex-Post Audit Strategy; 

•  Adoption of a Communication and Dissemination Strategy. 

In  2010  the  CS  JU  achieved  progress  in  both  increasing  its  operational  capacity  and  in 
running the Clean Sky operations. 10 additional staff members were recruited, growing to 20 
by  the  end  of  the  year.  An  Internal  Auditor  was  appointed  to  establish  the  internal  control 
function and, in particular, to deal with the risk management activities. A first internal audit 
started in November 2010, still in progress at the turn of the year. Also, the main settings of 
the  CS  JU  were  established:  a  Quality  Manual,  a  Manual  of  Financial  Procedures,  and  a 
Management  Manual.  A  Development  Plan  was  elaborated  and  had  to  be  submitted  for 
adoption by the Governing Board in 2011.  

In  addition,  in  December  2010  Clean  Sky  finalised  the  procurement  procedure  on  its  new 
permanent premises. The call for tender  has been organised jointly with the other four JUs, 
which  were  temporarily  housed  at  the  Covent  Garden  building  in  Brussels,  and  in  close 
collaboration  with  the  European  Commission.  The  CS  JU  moved  successfully  to  the  White 
Atrium building in Brussels in January 2011. 

As  aircraft  fuel  economy  is  influenced  by  flight  trajectory  management  strategy,  Clean  Sky 
maintained  close  links  with  the  SESAR  Joint  Undertaking,  which  investigates  air  traffic 
management technologies in line with the Single European Sky initiative.  

Technology Evaluator 

The TE has been created in 2008 with the objective to assess the environmental impacts and 
benefits of the overall Clean Sky's project output. The general TE requirements were defined 
in 2009. In 2010, they had to be reviewed and detailed, paying particular attention to the first 
assessment cycle and to the needs of the trade-off studies7. Among the main tasks for the year 
was to create a TE system mock-up based on the GRC (helicopter) case study. This has been 
expected  to  help  the  design  and  development  of  the  TE  system  for  the  first  mid-term 

6 

7 

Pursuant to Art. 16 (1) of Council Regulation (EC) 73/2008, the Commission was responsible for the 
establishment and initial operation of the IMI JU until it gained the operational capacity to implement 
its own budget. 

In  system  engineering,  a  trade-off  study  is  a  simultaneous  consideration  of  multiple  alternatives  at  a 
point in the design process where a decision needs to be made.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
assessment planned for the end of 2011. Each year until the final assessment in 2015, more 
accurate assessments are planned to be performed with the updated sets of models resulting 
from the ITDs' progress. 

Governance 

The CS JU Governing Board held four meetings in 2010.  

On  its  meeting  of  18  March  2010  the  Governing  Board  re-elected  for  a  second  and  last 
mandate its chair and vice-chair, followed by election of new chair and vice-chair for 2011 on 
its next meetings on 14 October and 17 December. The Governing Board approved inter alia 
the  CS  JU  General  Strategy,  the  CS  JU  Communication  and  Dissemination  Strategy, 
modifications to the model grant agreements, the CS JU Staff Policy Plan 2011-2013, the CS 
JU Annual Implementation Plan 2010, etc. 

The Steering Committees responsible for technical decisions taken within each ITD and the 
TE met regularly in the course of 2010.  

The  Scientific  and  Technological  Advisory  Board  (STAB)  was  set  up  in  June  2010  as  an 
advisory  body  to  the  CS  JU.  It  was  composed  of  11  high-level  scientists  and  engineers,  all 
independent from the Clean Sky's stakeholders. The first meetings of the Board took place in 
July and November. They were dedicated on the general presentation of the Clean Sky JU and 
on some specific issues. The first item which the STAB started work on was the completion 
of the Joint Undertaking's Development Plan. 

On  18  June  2010,  the  CS  JU's  stakeholders  gathered  for  the  first  General  Forum.  It  was 
designed  to  take  place  at  least  once  a  year  with  the  purpose  to  provide  information  to  the 
participants in the initiative about its activities and the progress of the Clean Sky JU, and to 
get  recommendations  from  them  on  managerial  and  operational  items.  This  event  gathered 
more  than  300  representatives  from  the  aviation  industry,  the  scientific  and  research 
community, national public authorities, and non-governmental organisations. 

Communication activities 

Among the considerable achievements during the year was the adoption of a Communication 
and Dissemination Strategy by the Clean Sky's Governing Board in June 2010. The activities 
undertaken  during  the  year  were  in  compliance  with  the  strategy.  A  CS  communication 
network  was  settled  to  gather  all  its  members  on  communication  issues.  The  first  meeting 
took place on 21 October 2010.  

In order to inform widely potential candidates about its calls for proposals, Clean Sky held a 
number of information sessions in Madrid, Vienna, Bologna, Turin, The Hague and London. 
On 18 June 2010 the Joint Undertaking organised a public conference "The aviation industry 
goes  green"  within  the  framework  of  the  first  General  Forum  on  the  latest  developments  of 
the Clean Sky programme. An exhibition featuring the activities of the six ITDs and the TE 
was accessible throughout the day.  

Furthermore,  the  Clean  Sky  initiative  was  promoted  through  different  external  industrial 
events  –  aerospace  trade  shows,  fairs  and  exhibitions,  such  as  the  ILA  Berlin  Air  Show  in 
Germany,  "Flyg  med  Framtid"  in  Stockholm  (Sweden),  the  International  Council  of  the 
Aeronautical  Sciences  (ICAS)  Conference  in  Nice  (France),  the  Farnborough  International 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Airshow  in  the  UK,  Helitech  in  Portugal,  the  AeroWeek  in  Brussels  (Belgium),  the 
AeroSpace  and  Defence  Industries  Association  of  Europe  (ASD)  Convention  in  Montreux 
(Switzerland), the Imperial College's Green Aviation Forum in London (UK). 

In 2010, Clean Sky changed its visual identity. A tagline "Innovating together, flying greener" 
was adopted and the logo was simplified. Promotional materials such as roll-ups, press kits, 
ITD  fact  sheets  were  produced.  Following  a  call  for  tender,  the  Clean  Sky's  website 
(http://www.cleansky.eu)  was  renewed  and  has  been  regularly  updated  with  up-to-date 
information on calls for proposals and latest news. A quarterly newsletter called "Skyline" has 
been launched.  

2.3. 

Calls for proposals 

2.3.1. 

Submission and evaluation process 

Grant agreements with members 

The  majority  of  the  work  inside  the  Clean  Sky  JU  is  carried  out  by  its  industrial  members 
under the form of grant agreements with named beneficiaries. According to Article 13 (2) 
(a) of Council Regulation (EC) 71/2008 setting up the Joint Undertaking an amount of up to € 
400 million shall be allocated to the ITD leaders and up to € 200 million – to the associate 
members.  In  turn,  the  ITD  leaders  and  associates  engage  to  contribute  resources  at  least 
matching the EU contribution. 

The  Clean  Sky  JU  signed  the  first  seven  grant  agreements  with  its  members  (referred  to  as 
"GAM") in 2008: one for each of the six ITDs, and a supplementary one for the activities of 
the Technology Evaluator. These grant agreements will remain in force for the whole duration 
of Clean Sky, until 31 December 2017. Each year, an amendment is signed in order to update 
the  annual  description  of  work  with  the  corresponding  JU  financial  contribution.  The 
commitments amounted to € 17 million in  2008, € 70.6 million in 2009 and € 75.7 million in 
2010. No new named beneficiaries joined the CS JU in 2010.  

Grant agreements with partners 

According to Article 13 (2) (b) of the same regulation, the remaining 25% of the EU funding 
to the Clean Sky JU (amounting to at least € 200 million) are alloca ted to partners selected via 
open  and  competitive  calls  for  proposals.  They  serve  the  dual  purpose  of  widening  the 
participation in Clean Sky to other organisations and to identify R&D performers to take part 
in the mainstream activities of Clean Sky. Partners selected via calls for proposals are funded 
in compliance with the upper funding limits set in the FP7 Rules for Participation.  

According to the Clean Sky's Rules for Participation and Rules for Submission of Proposals 
and the Related Evaluation, Selection and Award procedures any legal entity established in 
an EU Member State or in a country associated to the FP7 may participate in a CS project. A 
proposal  may  involve  one  or  several  participants.  Examples  of  potential  participants  are 
research institutes, universities, industry, including SMEs, and end-users. 

The  call  topics  are  proposed  by  each  ITD  Steering  Committee  and  reviewed  by  the  CS  JU 
Executive  Office  and  the  European  Commission.  The  calls  are  broadly  published  by  all 
suitable channels, including on the Clean Sky's website. According to the requirements of the 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
ITD  and  the  work  package,  a  single  stage  submission  and  evaluation  process  is  followed. 
After a proposal is submitted, eligibility check and independent evaluations took place.  

The evaluation of proposals is performed on the basis of the following principles:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Excellence of projects selected; 

Transparency of decisions; 

Fairness and impartiality of evaluations; 

Confidentiality of all information; 

Efficiency and speed of evaluation; 

Compliance with ethical and security principles. 

The  evaluation  of  proposals  is  carried  out  by  a  panel  of  experts  comprising  two  internal 
experts  from  the  ITD  responsible  for  the  call  and  two  external  experts  in  an  open  and 
transparent  competitive  procedure.  Topic  managers  representing  the  ITD  leaders,  as  well  as 
Clean  Sky  staff  members  also  take  part  in  the  evaluation  process.  The  presence  of 
independent  observers  aims  to  verify  and  guarantee  that  the  above-mentioned  rules  and 
principles are followed. 

The  evaluations  are  performed  against  six  pre-determined  evaluation  criteria:  1)  Technical 
excellence,  2)  Innovative  character,  3)  Compliance  with  the  call  for  proposals  specification 
and  timetable  (relevance),  4)  Adequacy  and  quality  of  respondent's  resources,  management 
and implementation capabilities and track record, 5) Appropriateness and efficient allocation 
of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment), and 6) Contribution to European 
competitiveness.  

For each criterion, a score is given on a scale from 0 (proposal fails to address the criterion) to 
5  (proposal  addresses  all  aspects  of  the  criterion).  All  factors  have  equal  weight.  For  a 
proposal to be considered for funding, it needs to pass the following thresholds: a minimum 
3/5 for each of the 6 criteria and a minimum 20/30 total score.  

The evaluation process consists of several steps: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Briefings of the experts to explain the process and the rules for evaluation; 

Eligibility Review Committee to ensure a coherent legal interpretation of all cases and 
equal treatment of participants; 

Individual  remote  evaluation,  the  results  of  which  are  included  in  an  individual 
evaluation report; 

Consensus meeting for each proposal, the results of which are included in a consensus 
evaluation report; 

Topic  meeting  to  examine  and  compare  the  various  consensus  reports,  the  results  of 
which are included in an evaluation summary report. A topic report is also established 
with a list of ranked proposals above thresholds, a list of proposals failing one or more 
thresholds and a list of ineligible proposals, if any.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
If the proposal passes the thresholds and is selected for funding, it enters into the next phase – 
the  negotiation.  The  process  is  concluded  by  the  signature  of  a  contract,  called  Grant 
Agreement with Partners (referred to as "GAP").  

It is important to note that the calls for proposals launched by the Clean Sky JU differ from 
collaborative  research  calls  launched  by  the  other  JTI  JUs.  The  content  of  the  activities  is 
much more focused, i.e. there are topics, rather than research themes, with a limited duration 
and specific targeted results expected at higher technology readiness levels.  

The calls supplement the technical competences of the Clean Sky's members by performing 
highly specific activities, which, on the other hand, have to "slot in" with the overall technical 
work plan of the CS 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 possible to participate in a call as a single entity and not in a 
consortium, as allowed by the Clean Sky's Rules for Submission of Proposals.  

Another difference from collaborative research calls is that the budget is defined by the topic 
value, and not by the maximum funding, which allows a wider participation from all types of 
entities, independently from the actual eligibility for funding.  

2.3.2.  Calls launched in 2009 and 2010 

Since its establishment and by the end of 2010, Clean Sky launched a total of seven calls for 
proposals  –  two  in  2009  and  five  in  2010.  As  a  result,  73  projects  are  currently  underway 
working  towards  the  development  of  environmental  technologies  with  impact  on  all  flying 
segments of commercial aviation. 

Clean  Sky  published  its  first  call  for  proposals  on  15  June  2009.  It  attracted  216  proposals 
requesting a total contribution of € 59 million. 45% of the applicants declared an SME status. 
After  the  evaluation  and  negotiation  processes,  57  grant  agreements  have  been  signed.  The 
Commission's  Annual  Report  on  the  progress  achieved  by  the  JTI  JUs  in  2009  provides 
detailed information on that call. 

The second call for proposals was open from 25 November 2009 till 23 February 2010. Since 
the submission and evaluation of the proposals took place in 2010, the results of the call were 
not included in the Commission's Annual Report on the progress achieved by the JTI JUs in 
2009 and will be reviewed in the present Commission Staff Working Paper.  

In  2010,  the  CS  JU  launched  5  calls  which  covered  150  topics,  resulting  in  a  total  of  325 
partners from 22 countries selected after call 6. The present document shall provide detailed 
information  on  four  of  those  five  calls  (calls  3  to  6).  Since  the  last  for  the  year  call  for 
proposals  (call  7)  was  launched  on  24  September  2010  and  the  evaluation  of  the  received 
proposals took place in January 2011, the Commission shall present the results of the call in 
its next year's report.  

The table below gives an overview of the calls for proposals launched by the Clean Sky JU in 
2009/2010 that will be reviewed in the present document: 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Call 
№ 

Reference 

Publication 
date 

Deadline 
for 
submission 

Evaluation 

Nr of 
topics 

Nr of 
GAPs 

Indicative 
budget 
(M€) 

Outcome 
of the call 
(M€)  

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

SP1-JTI-CS-
2009-02 

SP1-JTI-CS-
2010-01 

SP1-JTI-CS-
2010-02 

SP1-JTI-CS-
2010-03 

SP1-JTI-CS-
2010-04 

SP1-JTI-CS-
2010-05 

25-11-2009  23-02-2010  Mar 2010 

29-01-2010  27-04-2010  May 2010 

30-03-2010  30-06-2010 

Jul 2010 

30-04-2010  20-07-2010 

Sep 2010 

27-07-2010  12-10-2010  Nov 2010 

24-09-2010  09-12-2010 

Jan 2011 

24 

45 

4 

34 

29 

38 

20 

41 

4 

27 

24 

29 

11.2 

17.0 

5.9 

26.0 

18.8 

30.6 

Table 1. Overview of the CS JU calls for proposals launched in 2010 

8.3 

17.0 

5.9 

11.3 

16.7 

30.6 

The average response to the CS JU calls in 2010 was about 2.5 proposals per topic, i.e. more 
than  350  proposals  in  total.  The  average  failure  rate  of  the  topics  was  15%,  due  either  to  a 
lack  of  proposals  submitted  in  a  certain  topic,  or  to  negative  evaluation  results  of  the 
proposals in a topic. 

With respect to the first two calls in 2009, when the call fiches contained incorrect indicative 
budget under some topics, a significant improvement has occurred in 2010 on the eligibility 
aspects of proposals. After call 3 – the first call of 2010 – less than 1-2 proposals per call were 
declared ineligible due to a requested funding above the threshold defined in the call fiches. 

Still limited to call 6 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04), but referring to all calls launched by the Clean 
Sky  JU  (including  results  from  the  two  calls  launched  in  2009),  Figure  1  provides statistics 
per country in terms of presence in winning proposals: 

Figure 1. CS JU – calls 1 to 6 (2009 and 2010). Geographic distribution of winning proposals 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
For all calls for proposals (up to call 6), 42% of the winners selected for funding by the Clean 
Sky  JU  were  SMEs.  The  figure  below  shows  the  presence  of  SMEs  among  the  winning 
entities; it provides in particular the number of SMEs in winning consortia per ITD. 

Figure 2. CS JU – calls 1 to 6 (2009 and 2010). Number of winning SMEs 

The  calls  for  proposals  process  led  to  an  increased  number  of  grant  agreements  to  be 
negotiated in 2010. In total, 81 GAPs were processed at the total amount of € 18.5 million. Of 
this, € 11 million were paid for pre-financing of GAPs. 

The negotiation of the projects selected for funding in the third and fourth call for proposals 
(SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 and SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02) started before summer 2010 and by the time 
of drafting the report was still in progress, whereas the negotiations of the projects in call 5 
(SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03) were launched at the end of the year. The last two calls launched by 
Clean Sky in 2010 were expected to be negotiated in 2011.  

2.4. 

Call 2 SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02 

2.4.1. 

Summary information 

The Clean Sky JU published its second call for proposals on 25 November 2009. The call 
was  open  for  24  topics  covering  activities  within  all  ITDs  except  for  Smart  Fixed  Wing 
Aircraft  (SFWA)  and  Technology  Evaluator  (TE).  The  24  open  topics  were  grouped  in  11 
areas, further re-grouped under the ITDs as shown in the table below: 

Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

JTI-CS-ECO 

Clean Sky – Eco-Design 

JTI-CS-ECO-01  Area-01 – EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
ECO-01-001 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
ECO-01-002 

Life cycle assessment databases improvement 

Development of anaphoretic paint capable to 
protect pickled aluminium alloy surface against 
corrosive 

5 

2 

990 

650 

150 

500 

742.5 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

JTI-CS-ECO-02  Area-02 – EDS (Eco-Design for Systems) 

3 

340 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
ECO-02-001 

Sensor for Convective and/or Radiative Heat Loss

JTI-CS-2009-2-
ECO-02-002 

Thermo physical Properties Library for Relevant 
Fluids 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
ECO-02-003 

Methods & Tools – Electrical Network Analysis 

JTI-CS-GRA 

Clean Sky – Green Regional Aircraft 

JTI-CS-GRA-01  Area-01 – Low weight configurations 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
GRA-01-025 

Fatigue test of sensor integrated CFRP aircraft 
panels with stiffeners 

JTI-CS-GRA-02  Area-02 – Low noise configurations 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
GRA-02-005 

3D design of flap side edge active flow control 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
GRA-02-006 

Instrumentation-electronic (Optical assembly & 
Thermal and mechanical strain measurement) 

JTI-CS-GRC 

Clean Sky – Green Rotorcraft 

JTI-CS-GRC-01  Area-01 – Innovative Rotor Blades 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
GRC-01 -002 

Development and provision of a numerical model 
to solve laminar turbulent boundary layer 
transition and boundary layer velocity profiles for 
unsteady flow conditions 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
GRC-01-003 

Actuation mechanism development and supply for 
2D wind tunnel and specimen bench testing 

3 

1 

2 

8 

2 

285 

60 

80 

200 

380 

100 

100 

280 

80 

200 

5,040 

3,780 

355 

130 

225 

JTI-CS-GRC-02  Area-02 – Reduced drag of rotorcraft 

3 

1,335 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
GRC-02-001 

Contribution to the study of the air intake and 
exhaust integration into a tiltrotor nacelle 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
GRC-02-002 

Contribution to analysis of rotor hub drag 
reduction 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
GRC-02-003 

Contribution to optimisation of heavy helicopter 
engine installation design 

395 

500 

440 

JTI-CS-GRC-03 

Area-03 – Integration of innovative electrical 
systems 

2 

2,750 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
GRC-03-001 

Electric Tail Drive – Modelling, Simulation and 
Rig Prototype Development 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
GRC-03-002 

Innovative energy recovery for electrical use 

2,500 

250 

JTI-CS-GRC-05 

Area-05 – Environmentally friendly flight 
paths 

1 

600 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
GRC-05-003 

Emission analysis – Tools required to perform the 
emissions analysis and evaluation methodology, 
experimental support 

JTI-CS-SAGE  Clean Sky – Sustainable and Green Engines 

JTI-CS-SAGE-
02 

Area-02 – Direct Drive Open Rotor 

6 

3 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
SAGE-02-003 

Design, computation and drawing of lubrication 
system equipment 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
SAGE-02-004 

Performance and qualification tests of lubrication 
system equipment 

JTI·CS-2009-2-
SAGE-02-005 

Design & Make of a test bench for Heat 
Exchanger 

600 

1,760 

1,320 

1,300 

660 

240 

400 

Area-05 – Turboshaft 

3 

460 

JTI-CS-SAGE-
05 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
SAGE-05-007 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
SAGE-05-008 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
SAGE-05-009 

High temperature material 

Oil tank in composite 

Casing in composite 

JTI-CS-SGO 

Clean Sky – Systems for Green Operations 

JTI -CS-SGO-04  Area-04 – Aircraft Demonstrators 

2 

2 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
SGO-04-001 

Design and manufacture of an aircraft tractor 
compliant with specifications for Smart 
Operations on ground 

JTI-CS-2009-2-
SGO-04-002 

Provision of electrical equipments to complement 
the PROVEN tests rig 

230 

115 

115 

3,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

2,250 

TOTAL 

24 

11,170 

8,377.5 

Table 2. CS JU call 2 (SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02). Topics overview 

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 European Commission in the first 
call.  

The timing for the call is given on Figure 3 below: 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3. Timeline of the CS JU call 2 (SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02) 

The total budget for the second call included initially a financial contribution from the EU to 
the  Clean  Sky  JU  of  a  maximum  of  €  16  million.  This  call  was  entirely  financed  from  the 
2009 budget. The final published value was for a total scope of work of € 11,170,000 with a 
maximum EU funding of € 8,377,500 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated). 

The difference between the originally forecasted value and the finally allocated amount (equal 
to € 16 million) 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 million via calls  for proposals across its entire duration. 

2.4.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted 

The  call  was  published  on  25  November  2009  and  applicants  were  invited  to  submit  their 
proposals by 23 February 2010. In total, 60 proposals were submitted in response to the 24 
open  topics  addressed  by  the  present  call,  involving  applicants  from  16  countries.  2  were 
found  to  be  ineligible  and  the  remaining  58  eligible  proposals  were  evaluated  by  74 
independent experts. 

2.4.3.  Evaluation results 

The on-site evaluation of the proposals took place in Brussels between 22 and 26 March 2010 
following the methodology described in Section 2.3.1. It was preceded by individual remote 
evaluations. Out of the 58 eligible proposals, 35 passed the thresholds, while 23 failed one 
or more thresholds. 

In  terms  of  covered  technological  areas,  all  5  topics  in  Eco-Design  and  3  in  GRA  were 
successful. On the contrary, 2 out of 8 of the GRC topics failed (GRC-01-003 and GRC-02-
003),  because  in  both  cases  the  two  proposals  received  were  evaluated  below  threshold.  In 
SAGE, topic SGE-05-009 failed because the only proposal submitted was also assessed below 
threshold.  In  SGO,  topic  SGO-04-001  failed  due  to  the  fact  that  it  did  not  attract  any 
proposals in its domain. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
Thus,  after  the  evaluation,  20  projects  could  be  finalised  covering  20  of  the  originally 
published 24 topics. To sum up, the 4 topics remaining vacant were the following: 

•  ITD:  Green  Rotorcraft;  Area-01:  Innovative  rotor  blades;  Topic:  Actuation  mechanism 

development and supply for 2D wind tunnel and specimen bench testing; 

•  ITD:  Green  Rotorcraft;  Area-02:  Reduced  drag  of  rotorcraft;  Topic:  Contribution  to 

optimisation of heavy helicopter engine installation design; 

•  ITD: Sustainable and Green Engines; Area-05: Turboshaft; Topic: Casing in composite; 

•  ITD: Systems for Green Operations; Area-04: Aircraft Demonstrators; Topic: Design and 
manufacture of an aircraft tractor compliant with specifications for Smart Operations on 
ground. 

The 20 proposals proposed for funding accounted for 32 participations from 10 European 
countries.  Of  those,  10  (31.3%)  participants  came  from  academia  and  5  (15.6%)  were 
research institutions. The SME participation was 34.4% (11 companies), requesting a total 
funding of € 2,428,881 (29.3% of the total requested funding).  

The  geographical  distribution  of  the  proposals  selected  for  funding  is  shown  in  the  graph 
below, the UK and Italy being on the lead with 4 winning proposals each, followed closely by 
Belgium (3 proposals), Germany and France (2 proposals): 

Figure 4. CS JU call 2 (SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02). Proposals selected for funding per country 

2.4.4.  Grant agreements signed 

The negotiations of the 20 proposals proposed for funding  in CS  JU call 2 started  in April-
May 2010. It is important to note that by the time of writing of the present document some of 
the  projects  were  still  under  negotiation.  In  Table  3  below  these  projects  are  shown  on 
positions 16-20 in italic. 

The  total  budget  requested  by  the  selected  20  proposals  amounted  to  €  8,279,484.40,  of 
which  €  5,712,247.55  was  the  EU  contribution.  The  total  contribution  under  the  GAPs 
signed by October 2011 – 15 contracts in total – equalled to € 6,040,060.40, of which the EU 
funding  was  €  4,385,730.80  and  the  in-kind  contribution  from  industry  amounting  to  € 
1,654,329.60. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
№ 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Project 
number

267496 

267678 

Project acronym 

Project title 

CS JU 
contribution 

In-kind 
contribution

Total 
contributions 

LCA DATIM 

Life cycle assessment database improvement 

112,500.00 

37,500.00 

150,000.00 

CORA 

Sensor for Convective and Radiative Heat Loss 

44,550.00 

14,850.00 

59,400.00 

267614  AEROTHERMOPROP Modelica library of thermodynamic and transport properties 

60,000.00 

20,000.00 

80,000.00 

267608 

SMART 

Saber Model Automatic tRanslation Tool, a software for Saber 
models conversion to multi-systems simulation platforms 

149,310.00 

49,770.00 

199,080.00 

267522 

FATIGUETEST 

Fatigue Test 

74,805.00 

24,936.00 

99,741.00 

267487 

267679 

267567 

3DFSE 

SMYLE 

LAMBLADE 

9. 

267309 

TILTOP 

3D Design of Flap Side Edge Flow Control 

59,957.00 

19,986.00 

79,943.00 

LE coupon based technology 

Development and provision of a numerical model to solve 
laminar-turbulent boundary-layer transition and boundary-layer 
velocity profiles for unsteady flow conditions 

Efficient Shape Optimization of Intake and Exhaust of a Tiltrotor 
Nacelle 

148,360.00 

49,455.00 

197,815.00 

92,400.00 

30,840.00 

123,240.00 

286,200.00 

95,400.00 

381,600.00 

10.  267571 

CARD 

Contribution to Analysis of Rotor Hub Drag Reduction 

374,997.00 

125,001.20 

499,998.20 

11.  267322 

ELETAD 

Electrical Tail Drive – Modelling, Simulation and Rig Prototype 
Development 

1,858,825.80 

619,608.60 

2,478,434.40 

12.  267643 

RECYCLE 

theRmal Energy reCoverY eleCtricaL systEms 

187,500.00 

62,500.00 

250,000.00 

13.  267492 

MAEM-RO 

Methodologies and applications of emission measurements on 
rotorcraft 

288,500.00 

288,500.00 

577,000.00 

14.  267617 

GILD 

Green & Innovative Lubrication Devices 

468,186.00 

156,062.00 

624,248.00 

15.  267651 

LUBEST 

Performance and qualification tests of lubrication system 
equipment 

179,640.00 

59,920.80 

239,560.80 

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) 

€ 4,385,730 

€ 1,654,330 

€ 6,040,060 

EN 

21 

EN 

 
  
№ 

Project 
number

Project acronym 

Project title 

16.  267285 

CR FREE EPAINT 

17.  267676 

TB-ACOC 

Development of a non chromated, Reach’s compliant anodic 
electropaint, with very low volatile organic compounds, for high 
protection against electrochemical corrosion of pickled 
aluminium alloys used 

Design and manufacture of a bench test to measure the thermal 
performance and pressure drop of the coolers Air Cooled Oil 
Cooler 

CS JU 
contribution 

In-kind 
contribution

Total 
contributions 

283,687.00 

234,188.00 

517,875.00 

288,747.00 

93,883.00 

382,630.00 

18.  267525 

TIALBLADE 

(Blades Into) High Temperature Material 

172,476.75 

60,628.25 

233,105.00 

19.  267611 

COMP-OIL-TANK 

Feasibility, design, manufacture and characterization of an oil 
tank made of composite material 

86,096.00 

28,698.00 

114,794.00 

20.  267210 

ELPOC 

Electrical Power Control – More Electric Aircraft 

495,510.00 

495,510.00 

991,020.00 

Sub-Total (Proposals in negotiation) 

TOTAL 

€ 1,326,518 

€ 912,907 

€ 2,239,424 

€ 5,712,248 

€ 2,567,237 

€ 8,279,484 

Table 3. Signed GAPs and proposals in negotiations in the CS JU call 2 (SP1-JTI-CS-2009-02) 

EN 

22 

EN 

 
  
2.5. 

Call 3 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01 

2.5.1. 

Summary information 

The Clean Sky JU published its third call for proposals on 29 January 2010. The call was 
open for 45 topics covering activities within all ITDs without the Technology Evaluator (TE). 
The 45 open topics were grouped in 13 areas, further re-grouped under the six ITDs as shown 
in the table below: 

Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

JTI-CS-ECO 

Clean Sky – Eco-Design 

JTI-CS-ECO-01  Area-01 – EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
ECO-01-003 

Development of Chromium free dense and thin 
micro-arc coatings for corrosion protection of 
light alloys (Al and Mg) 

2 

1 

JTI-CS-ECO-02  Area-02 – EDS (Eco-Design for Systems) 

1 

JТI-СS-2010-1-
ЕСО-02-004 

Electrical test bench drive systems: mechanical 
interfaces 

JTI-CS-GRA 

Clean Sky – Green Regional Aircraft 

JTI-CS-GRA-01  Area-01 – Low weight configurations 

12 

8 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRA-01-026 

Reliability Oriented Optimisation of Structural 
Replacement Strategies 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRA-01-027 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRA-01-028 

Design and manufacturing of smart composite 
panels for wing applications and development 
of structural health monitoring techniques 

Nano Modification of CFRP Resin 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRA-01-029 

Definition of requirements and tests of 
practicability 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRA-01-030 

Advanced Lightning tests on a few material 
types for aviation 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRA-01-031 

Functional laminates development Components 
compatibility and feasibility assessment 
Industrialization 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRA-01-032 

Resin Laminate and Industrial Nanoparticles 
Concept and Application Industrialization 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRA-01-033 

Trade-off study for the ranking of new 
technologies best fitting wing 

JTI-CS-GRA-02  Area-02 – Low noise configurations 

3 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRA-02-007 

Wing/pylon/nacelle/HLD for advanced 
regional TF A/C configuration by 
multidisciplinary design with aero-elastic 

1,046 

784.5 

1,518.75 

400 

400 

646 

646 

2,025 

1,075 

150 

120 

80 

75 

150 

200 

180 

120 

800 

450 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

constrains 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRA-02-008 

Efficient CFD multiphysics programming 
research 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRA-02-009 

Adaptive wing structure concept for load 
matching 

JTI-CS-GRA-04  Area-04 – Mission and trajectory 
Management 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRA-04-002 

ATM operational requirements (collection of 
information regarding ATM operational 
requirements, available regulation, safety 
requirements and future expected features) 

150 

200 

1 

150 

150 

JTI-CS-GRC 

Clean Sky – Green Rotorcraft 

JTI-CS-GRC-01  Area-01 – Innovative Rotor Blades 

4 

1 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRC-01 -004 

Performance/benefit assessment of advanced 
rotor configurations including active and 
passive blades 

2,622 

1,966.5 

400 

400 

JTI-CS-GRC-02  Area-02 – Reduced drag of rotorcraft 

2 

1,725 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRC-02-004 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRC-02-005 

Contribution to design optimisation of tiltrotor 
for drag (fuselage/wing junction, nose, landing 
gear, empennage) 

Contribution to the aerodynamic design 
optimisation of a helicopter fuselage including 
its rotating rotor head 

898 

827 

JTI-CS-GRC-04  Area-04 – Installation of diesel engines on 

1 

497 

light helicopters 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
GRC-04-002 

Participation to the definition of optimal 
helicopter architecture for diesel engine 

JTI-CS-SAGE 

Clean Sky – Sustainable and Green Engines 

JTI-CS-SAGE-03  Area-03 – Large 3-shaft turbofan 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SAGE-03-001 

Fan annulus filler development 

JTI-CS-SFWA 

Clean Sky – Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft 

JTI-CS-SFWA-01  Area-01 – Smart Wing Technology 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-004 

Support of icing-tests (runback-ice behaviour 
of surfaces) and icing mechanisms 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-005 

Support of development of riblet-application 
device 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-006 

Concept for automated riblet-application 
(robot-concept) 

1 

1 

18 

17 

497 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

6,350 

5,850 

230 

260 

260 

750 

4,762.5 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

JТ1-С8-2010-1-
SFWA-01-007 

In field surface inspection tool (for bonded 
repair) 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-008 

Construction and assembly of a prototype 
surface pre-treatment tool for in-field use 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-009 

Prototype of curing tool 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-010 

Phased array ultrasound and NDT 
measurements 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-011 

Prefabricated CFRP Parts 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-012 

Concept study: Cleaning device for wing 
leading edge 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-013 

Active Flow Control (AFC) techniques on 
trailing edge shroud for improved high lift 
configurations – design, manufacture and tests 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-014 

Manufacturing of the test set up for gust load 
alleviation in the Onera S3Ch WT facility 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-015 

Development and test of a fluidic actuator 
prototype (MEMS type) on aircraft level 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-016 

Ultra low power autonomous wireless stain 
gauge data acquisition unit 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-017 

Fluidic sensor for separation detection in flight 
– development, design, C&M, and tests 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-018 

Development and test of subsystem of active 
flow control actuator based on pneumatic 
principles 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-019 

Flown Control Actuator System development, 
manufacture and demonstration for high lift 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-01-020 

Structural designs and tests for integration of 
active flow control concepts on trailing edge 
high lift device 

JTI-CS-SFWA-02  Area-02 – New Configuration 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SFWA-02-006 

Design and manufacture of a ground-based 
structural/systems demonstrator 

JTI-CS-SGO 

Clean Sky – Systems for Green Operations 

JTI-CS-SGO-02  Area-02 – Management of Aircraft Energy 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SGO-02-012 

Saber Electrical Benchmark 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SGO-02-013 

Test Bench for global cooling solutions 
validation 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

150 

150 

150 

150 

150 

40 

460 

400 

190 

800 

610 

290 

620 

940 

500 

500 

2,658.75 

3,545 

3,245 

200 

500 

1 

8 

7 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SGO-02-014 

Construction of evaluation Power Modules 
(10) to a given design 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SGO-02-015 

Current return simulation (methodology & 
tool) 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SGO-02-016 

Thermal exchange, modelling and power 
optimization 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SGO-02-017 

Integration study of Electro-thermal and 
Electro-mechanical Ice Protection devices in 
an A320 slat 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SGO-02-018 

Design, manufacturing, integration and 
validation of AFD function 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

175 

300 

500 

370 

1,200 

JTI-CS-SGO-03  Area-03 – Management of Trajectory and 

1 

300 

Mission 

JTI-CS-2010-1-
SGO-03-007 

Parametric optimisation techniques for on-
board trajectory shaping under constraints 

300 

TOTAL  

45 

16,588 

12,441 

Table 4. CS JU call 3 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01). Topics overview 

The call process was managed by the Clean Sky JU, according to the principles of excellence, 
transparency,  fairness  and  impartiality,  confidentiality,  efficiency,  speed  and  ethical 
considerations.  

The timing for the call is given on Figure 5 below: 

Figure 5. Timeline of the CS JU call 3 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01) 

The  total  indicative  budget  of  the  call  was  set  to  €  16,588,000,  of  which  the  EU 
contribution could be up to € 12,441,000 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated). 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.5.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted 

The  call  was  published  on  29  January  2010  and  applicants  were  invited  to  submit  their 
proposals by 27 April 2010. In total, 113 proposals were submitted in response to the 45 open 
topics addressed by the present call, involving applicants from 18 countries. 6 were found to 
be  ineligible  and  the  remaining  107  eligible  proposals  were  evaluated  by  95  independent 
experts. 

2.5.3.  Evaluation results 

The on-site evaluation of the proposals took place in Brussels between 17 and 21 May 2010 
following the methodology described in Section 2.3.1. It was preceded by individual remote 
evaluations.  To  ensure  high  degree  of  transparency,  the  CS  JU  invited  one  independent 
observer to verify if the evaluations have been done according to the set evaluation guidelines 
and rules. Out of the 107 eligible proposals, 70 passed the thresholds, while 37 failed one or 
more thresholds. 

In terms of covered technological areas, similarly to the previous call launched by Clean Sky 
in  2009,  the  2  topics  in  Eco-Design  and  all  12  topics  in  GRA  were  successful.  The  same 
applied  to  the  only  topic  published  in  SAGE.  As  to  GRC,  3  out  of  the  4  topics  in  this 
demonstrator resulted in a winning proposal. Topic GRC-04-002 failed, because all proposals 
were evaluated below threshold. Regarding SFWA and SGO, topics SFWA-01-007, SFWA-
01-014 and SGO-05-015 did not attract any proposals in their domains, while the proposals 
submitted in SFWA-01-013 and SGO-02-014 could not pass the required thresholds.  

Thus, after the evaluation, 40 projects could be finalised. To sum up, the 6 topics remaining 
vacant were the following: 

•  ITD: Green Rotorcraft; Area-04: Installation of diesel engines on light helicopters; Topic: 

Participation to the definition of optimal helicopter architecture for diesel engine; 

•  ITD: Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft; Area-01: Smart Wing Technology; Topic: In field surface 

inspection tool (for bonded repair); 

•  ITD:  Smart  Fixed  Wing  Aircraft;  Area-01:  Smart  Wing  Technology;  Topic:  Active  Flow 
Control (AFC) techniques on trailing edge shroud for improved high lift configurations – 
design, manufacture and tests; 

•  ITD: Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft; Area-01: Smart Wing Technology; Topic: Manufacturing 

of the test set up for gust load alleviation in the Onera S3Ch WT facility; 

•  ITD:  Systems  for  Green  Operations;  Area-02:  Management  of  Aircraft  Energy;  Topic: 

Construction of evaluation Power Modules (10) to a given design; 

•  ITD:  Systems  for  Green  Operations;  Area-02:  Management  of  Aircraft  Energy;  Topic: 

Current return simulation (methodology & tool). 

The 40 proposals proposed for funding accounted for 63 participations from 10 European 
countries.  Of  those,  23  (36.5%)  came  from  academia  and  10  (15.9%)  were  research 
institutions. The SME participation was 27% (17 companies were SMEs), requesting a total 
funding of € 3,235,968 (24% of the total requested funding).  

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
The  geographical  distribution  of  the  proposals  selected  for  funding  is  shown  in  the  graph 
below,  Germany  taking  firmly  the  leading  position  with  13  proposals,  followed  by  the  UK, 
France and Italy: 

Figure 6. CS JU call 3 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01). Proposals selected for funding per country 

2.5.4.  Grant agreements signed 

The  negotiations  of  the  40  proposals  proposed  for  funding  in  CS  JU  call  3  started  in  June-
August  2010.  Considering  that  the  average  time-to-grant  for  Clean  Sky’s  projects  with 
partners in 2010 was on average 8.21 months, by the time of writing of the present document 
some of the projects were still under negotiation. In Table 5 below these projects are shown 
on positions 25-40 in italic.  

As  seen  in  the  table,  the  total  budget  requested  by  the  40  proposals  amounted  to  € 
13,535,240.72,  of  which  €  9,091,926.55  was  the  EU  contribution.  The  total  contribution 
under the GAPs signed by October 2011 – 24 contracts in total – equalled to € 8,283,319.72, 
of  which  the  EU  funding  was  €  5,526,556.00  and  the  in-kind  contribution  from  industry 
amounting to € 2,756,763.72. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
№ 

Project 
number 

Project acronym 

Project title 

1. 

270589 

CO-PROCLAM 

2. 

270625 

MACOTECH 

COrrosion PROtective Coating on Light Alloys by 
Micro-arc oxidation 

Design and manufacturing of smart composite panels
for wing applications and development of structural 
health monitoring techniques 

CS JU 
contribution 

In-kind 
contribution 

Total 
contributions 

291,675.00 

107,545.00 

399,220.00 

89,955.00 

29,985.00 

119,940.00 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

268170 

RESMOD 

Modification of Resin 

55,080.00 

18,360.00 

73,440.00 

270586  WINGTECH_EVALUATION Wing box technology evaluation – trade-off study for 

89,765.00 

29.922.00 

119,687.00 

the ranking of new technologies best fitting wing 

270593 

270612 

270641 

AWAHL 

Advanced Wing And High-Lift Design 

319,544.00 

130,456.00 

450,000.00 

E-CFD-GPU 

Efficient CFD Multi-physics programming research 

112,500.00 

37,500.00 

150,000.00 

DARGOS 

Definition of ATM Requirements for GRA 
Operations and Simulations 

112,065.00 

37,355.00 

149,420.00 

8. 

270629 

MORALI 

9. 

270609 

CODE-TILT 

10. 

270563 

ADHERO 

11. 

270571 

MISPA 

12. 

270535 

CLEANCOMPFIELD 

13. 

270669 

COMPARE 

Multi-Objective Robust Assessment of heLicopter 
Improvements 

Contribution to design optimization of tiltrotor 
components for drag reduction 

Aerodynamic Design Optimisation of a Helicopter 
Fuselage including a Rotating Rotor Head 

Proposal for the Development of an Applicator for 
Microstructured Paint Coatings Resulting in 
Significant Drag Reduction of Treated Surfaces 

Construction and Assembly of a Prototype Surface 
Pre-treatment Tool for In-filed use 

COMPArative evaluation of NDT techniques for 
high-quality bonded composite REpairs 

275,880.00 

123,960.00 

399,840.00 

670,500.00 

223,500.00 

894,000.00 

618,750.00 

206,250.00 

825,000.00 

182,608.00 

70,265.72 

252,873.72 

112,500.00 

37,500.00 

150,000.00 

112,497.00 

37,503.00 

150,000.00 

EN 

29 

EN 

 
  
№ 

14. 

15. 

Project 
number 

270539 

270644 

Project acronym 

Project title 

CS JU 
contribution 

In-kind 
contribution 

Total 
contributions 

EASYPATCH 

Prefabricated CFRP Parts 

112,050.00 

37,350.00 

149,400.00 

CLEANLE 

Concept Study of a cleaning device for wing leading 
edges 

29,955.00 

9,985.00 

39,940.00 

16. 

270577 

MEMFAC 

17. 

270658 

STRAINWISE 

18. 

270597 

FLOWSENSYS 

19. 

270526 

DT-FA-AFC 

20. 

270588 

AFCIN 

21. 

270601 

GBSSD(2) 

A Microfabricated Actuator for Active Flow Control 
on Aircraft 

Hardware & Software Development of Wireless 
Sensor Network Nodes for Measurement of Strain in 
Airborne Environment 

Flow sensor system for the separation detection at 
low speed in view of flight 

Development and Test of Fluidic Actuators for 
Active Flow Control Applications 

Structural designs and tests for integration of active 
flow control concepts on a trailing edge high lift 
device 

Design & Manufacture of a ground based 
structural/systems demonstrator (Phase 2) 

94,988.00 

94,988.00 

189,976.00 

552,048.00 

243,345.00 

795,393.00 

76,500.00 

25,500.00 

102,000.00 

194,595.00 

65,165.00 

259,760.00 

321,599.00 

108,401.00 

430,000.00 

249,807.00 

249,808.00 

499,615.00 

22. 

23. 

270666 

270598 

ESCRITP 

Electrical Simulation Criteria & Tool Performances 

100,000.00 

100,000.00 

200,000.00 

ARCANGEL-ALPHA 

Arcing and next generation electrical airplane power 
hazard abatement 

593,407.00 

593,409.00 

1,186,816.00 

24. 

270624 

POTRA 

Parametric optimisation software package for 
trajectory shaping under constraints 

158,288.00 

138,711.00 

296,999.00 

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) 

25. 

270583 

VEDISYS 

Versatile and Eco-efficient Direct Drive Systems for 
Testing the Starters/Generators of Aircraft Engines 

€ 5,526,556 

€ 2,756,764 

€ 8,283,320 

484,363.00 

161,457.00 

645,820.00 

EN 

30 

EN 

 
  
№ 

Project 
number 

Project acronym 

Project title 

26. 

270584 

ELTESTSYS 

27. 

270590 

ROSA 

28. 

270573 

EXPECT 

Electrical test bench drive systems: mechanical 
interfaces 

Reliability Oriented Optimisation of Structural 
Replacement Strategies for Aircraft Structures 

Examination of Practical Aspects of Innovative 
Bonded Composite Repair Techniques 

CS JU 
contribution 

In-kind 
contribution 

Total 
contributions 

453,900.00 

169,500.00 

623,400.00 

112,470.00 

37,490.00 

149,960.00 

56,250.00 

18,750.00 

75,000.00 

29. 

270622 

CLEAN SKY FOUDRE 

Advanced Lightning tests on a few material types for 
aviation 

56,500.00 

56,500.00 

113,000.00 

30. 

270616 

COMPASS 

31. 

270599 

BME CLEAN SKY 032 

32. 

33. 

270640 

270596 

MAWS 

ORCA 

34. 

270647 

ICE-TRACK 

35. 

270587 

RIBLET ROBOTICS 

36. 

270574 

INDUCTOR 

Functional laminates development. Components 
compatibility and feasibility assessment. 
Industrialization 

Resin. Laminate and Industrial Nanoparticles 
Concept and Application. Industrialization 

149,997.00 

50,000.00 

199,997.00 

134,999.00 

45,001.00 

180,000.00 

Modelling of Adaptive Wing Structures 

149,999.55 

49,999.85 

199,999.40 

Development of an optimized large scale engine 
CFRP annulus filler 

Support of Icing Tests (Runback-Ice behaviour of 
surfaces) and Icing Mechanisms 

Concept for automated riblet application (robot-
concept) 

Induction based Curing Tool for Optimized heating 
of composite Repairs 

573,132.00 

423,365.00 

996,397.00 

172,100.00 

57,367.60 

229,467.60 

130,000.00 

130,000.00 

260,000.00 

112,500.00 

37,500.00 

150,000.00 

37. 

38. 

270531 

270660 

FLOCOSYS 

Efficient System for Flow Control Actuation 

45,450.00 

15,150.00 

60,600.00 

BANCHYDRO 

Design and modify test bench to allow liquid-liquid 
heat exchanger engineering. Qualification and 
certification tests. Measure the thermal performance 

373,875.00 

124,625.00 

498,500.00 

EN 

31 

EN 

 
  
№ 

Project 
number 

Project acronym 

Project title 

CS JU 
contribution 

In-kind 
contribution 

Total 
contributions 

39. 

270561 

TEMPO 

40. 

270591 

SIEDIT 

Sub-Total (Proposals in negotiation) 

TOTAL 

and pressure drop. 

Thermal Exchange Modelling and Power 
Optimization 

Development of a Slat with Integrated Electrical 
Deicers for Icing Wind Tunnel Tests 

374,835.00 

124,945.00 

499,780.00 

185,000.00 

185,000.00 

370,000.00 

€ 3,565,371 

€ 1,686,550 

€ 5,251,921 

€ 9,091,927 

€ 4,443,314 

€ 13,535,241 

Table 5. Signed GAPs and proposals in negotiations in the CS JU call 3 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-01) 

EN 

32 

EN 

 
  
2.6. 

Call 4 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02 

2.6.1. 

Summary information 

The Clean Sky JU published its fourth call for proposals on 30 March 2010. The call was 
open for 4 topics grouped in two areas under one ITD – Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) 
as shown in the table below: 

Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

Nr of 
topics 

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

JTI-CS-SFWA 

Clean Sky – Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft 

JTI-CS-SFWA-01  Area01 – Smart Wing Technology  

JTI-CS-2010-2-
SFWA-021 

JTI-CS-2010-2-
SFWA-022 

MEMS accelerometer for wing behaviour 
measurement 

MEMS gyrometer for wing behaviour 
measurement 

JTI-CS-SFWA-03  Area03 – Flight Demonstrators 

4 

2 

2 

JTI-CS-2010-2-
SFWA-03-002 

JTI-CS-2010-2-
SFWA-03-003 

TOTAL  

Starboard leading edge and upper cover 
design and manufacturing 

Krueger Flaps Design and Manufacture 

4,425 

5,900 

1,400 

600 

800 

4,500 

3,700 

800 

Table 6. CS JU call 4 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02). Topics overview 

4 

5,900 

4,425 

The call process was managed by the Clean Sky JU, according to the principles of excellence, 
transparency,  fairness  and  impartiality,  confidentiality,  efficiency,  speed  and  ethical 
considerations.  

The timing for the call is given on Figure 7 below: 

Figure 7. Timeline of the CS JU call 4 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02) 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The total indicative budget of the call was set to € 5,900,000, of which the EU contribution 
could be up to € 4,425,000 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated). 

2.6.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted 

The  call  was  published  on  30  March  2010  and  applicants  were  invited  to  submit  their 
proposals  by  30  June  2010.  In  total,  9  proposals  were  submitted  in  response  to  the  4  open 
topics addressed by the present call, involving applicants from 6 countries. None of them was 
found to be ineligible, and all 9 eligible proposals were evaluated by 8 independent experts. 

2.6.3.  Evaluation results 

The individual remote evaluations of the proposals were carried out between 12 and 25 July 
2010,  followed  by  consensus  meetings  on  the  CS  site  in  Brussels  on  26-27  July  2010.  To 
ensure high degree of transparency, the CS JU invited the same independent observer as in the 
previous  call  to  verify  if  the  evaluations  have  been  done  according  to  the  set  evaluation 
guidelines and rules. Out of the 9 eligible proposals, 7 passed the thresholds, while 2 failed 
one or more thresholds. After the evaluation, proposals were selected for negotiation covering 
all 4 topics.  

The  4  proposals  proposed  for  funding  accounted  for  4  participations  from  4  different 
European countries – the UK, Belgium, Norway and Switzerland. Of those, all were private 
industrial companies – there were no participants coming from academia or research centres. 
The  SME  participation  was  50%,  requesting  a  total  funding  of  €  1,400,000  (23.9%  of  the 
total requested funding).  

2.6.4.  Grant agreements signed 

The negotiations of the 4 proposals proposed for funding in CS JU call 4 started in August-
October 2010. Currently, all contracts are signed and one of the projects – "Wing Dynamics 
Acceleration Sensor" is already running.  

As seen in Table 7 below, the total budget requested by the selected proposals amounted to € 
5,859,840, of which € 3,279,920 was the EU contribution: 

№ 

Project 
nr 

Project 
acronym 

1. 

271492  WINGAC

CS 

Project title 

Wing Dynamics 
Acceleration Sensor 

CS JU 
contribution 

In-kind 
contribution 

Total 
contributions 

450,000.00 

150,000.00 

600,000.00 

2. 

271494  CS-GYRO  MEMS gyrometer for 

600,000.00 

200,000.00 

800,000.00 

wing behaviour 
measurement 

3. 

271496  DEAMAK  Design And Manufacture 

379,920.00 

379,920.00 

759,840.00 

4. 

271498 

NLFFD 

of Krueger Flaps 

NLF Starboard Leading 
Edge & Top cover design 
& manufacture 

1,850,000.00 

1,850,000.00 

3,700,000.00 

TOTAL 

€ 3,279,920 

€ 2,579,920 

€ 5,859,840 

Table 7. Signed GAPs in the CS JU call 4 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-02) 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
2.7. 

Call 5 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03 

2.7.1. 

Summary information 

The Clean Sky JU published its fifth call for proposals on 30 April 2010. The call was open 
for 34 topics covering activities within all ITDs without the Technology Evaluator (TE). The 
34 open topics were grouped in 11 areas, further re-grouped under the six ITDs as shown in 
the table below: 

Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

JTI-CS-ECO 

Clean Sky – Eco-Design 

JTI-CS-ECO-01  Area-01 – EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
ECO-01-004 

Development and implementation of Magnesium 
sheets in A/C 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
ECO-01-005 

Integration development of a wireless strain 
monitoring system with a simulation tool 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
ECO-01-006 

Enhanced local heating device capable of high 
and homogeneous temperature for the repair of 
large composite damages 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
ECO-01-007 

Accelerated fatigue testing methodology for fibre 
reinforced laminates for aircraft structures 

JTI-CS-GRA 

Clean Sky – Green Regional Aircraft 

JTI-CS-GRA-02  Area-02 – Low noise configurations 

4 

4 

4 

3 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
GRA-02-010 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
GRA-02-011 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
GRA-02-012 

Advanced concepts for trailing edge morphing 
wings: design and manufacturing of test rig and 
test samples and lest execution 

LE based technology structure realisation 

Aero-acoustic design and assessment of a low-
noise configuration for a regional aircraft nose 
landing gear (NLG) 

740 

740 

70 

250 

220 

200 

840 

510 

210 

150 

150 

JTI-CS-GRA-04  Area-04 – Mission and Trajectory 
Management 

1 

330 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
GRA-04-003 

Advanced avionics equipment simulation 

JTI-CS-GRC 

Clean Sky – Green Rotorcraft 

JTI-CS-GRC-03  Area-03 – Integration of innovative electrical 

systems 

Piezo power supply module 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
GRC-03-003 

1 

1 

330 

430 

430 

430 

555 

630 

322.5 

JTI-CS-SAGE 

Clean Sky – Sustainable and Green Engines 

4 

12,500 

9,375 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

JTI-CS-SAGE-03  Area-03 – Large 3-shaft turbofan 

1 

10,000 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SAGE-03-002 

Aeroengine intake technology development 

10,000 

JTI-CS-SAGE-05  Area-05 – Turboshaft 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SAGE-05-010 

Development of a Wasted Heat Regeneration 
System (WHRS) 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SAGE-05-011 

Development of exhaust noise attenuation 
technologies 

JTI-СЗ-2010-3-
SАGЕ-05-012 

Development of an advanced system for pollutant 
measurement 

JTI-CS-SFWA 

Clean Sky – Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft 

JTI-CS-SFWA-01  Area-01 – Smart Wing Technology 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SFWA-01-023 

Design of Robust Shock-Control-Bumps for 
Transport Aircraft with Laminar-Flow Wings 

3 

8 

5 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SFWA-01-024 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SFWA-01-025 

Flight-tests with multi-functional coatings 

Development of a closed loop flow control 
algorithm for wing trailing edge flow control 
including experimental validation 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SFWA-01-026 

Power module using Silicon Carbide technology 
for DC/DC converter application 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SFWA-01-027 

Deflection and structural health monitoring of 
composite wing movables driven by smart 
actuators 

2,500 

1,200 

1,100 

200 

4,040 

2,140 

350 

150 

560 

480 

600 

JTI-CS-SFWA-02  Area-02 – New Configuration 

3 

1,900 

3,030 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SFWA-02-007 

Wind Tunnel Model Design for Low Speed Test 
with Active Flow Control 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SFWA-02-008 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SFWA-02-009 

Numerical and experimental aero-acoustic 
assessment of installed Counter Rotating Open 
Rotors (CROR) power plant 

Model design & manufacturing of the turbofan 
configuration for low speed aerodynamic and 
acoustic tests 

JTI-CS-SGO 

Clean Sky – Systems for Green Operations 

JTI-CS-SGO-02  Агеа-02 – Management of Aircraft Energy 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SGO-02-019 

Sample PEM construction for testing, 
characterisation and manufacturability 
assessment. 

250 

200 

1,450 

13 

11 

7,250 

5,437.5 

4,500 

500 

JTI-CS-2010-3-

Development of key technology components for 

250 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

SGO-02-020 

high performance electric motors 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SGO-02-021 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SGO-02-022 

Development of key technology components for 
high power-density power converters for 
rotorcraft swashplate 

Fan noise reduction: study and realisation of a 
sub-assembly dedicated to new generation of 
Starter / Generator 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SGO-02-023 

Development of current and voltage sensors 
suitable with aircraft environment 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SGO-02-024 

Test bench for endurance test and reliability of 
avionics power electronic modules 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SGO-02-025 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SGO-02-026 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SGO-02-027 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SGO-02-028 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SGO-02-029 

Definition and realisation of a field bus suitable 
for a multi-PEM (power electronic modules) 
resource 

Modelica Model Library Development Part I 

Simulation and Analysis Tool Development Part I

Support to design and test of cooling technologies

Tests of advanced lubrication equipment 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

250 

200 

600 

800 

500 

300 

400 

350 

350 

JTI-CS-SGO-03  Area-03 – Management of Trajectory and 

1 

750 

Mission 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SGO-03-008 

Modelling of weather phenomena to support 
Advanced Weather Radar development 

JTI-CS-SGO-04  Aгеа-04 – Aircraft Demonstrators 

1 

JTI-CS-2010-3-
SGO-04-001 

TOTAL  

Design and manufacture of an aircraft tractor 
compliant with specifications for Smart 
Operations on ground 

750 

2,000 

2,000 

34 

25,800 

19,350 

Table 8. CS JU call 5 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03). Topics overview 

The call process was managed by the Clean Sky JU, according to the principles of excellence, 
transparency,  fairness  and  impartiality,  confidentiality,  efficiency,  speed  and  ethical 
considerations.  

The timing for the call is given on Figure 8 below: 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8. Timeline of the CS JU call 5 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03) 

The  total  indicative  budget  of  the  call  was  set  to  €  25,800,000,  of  which  the  EU 
contribution could be up to € 19,350,000 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated). 

2.7.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted 

The call was published on 30 April 2010 and applicants were invited to submit their proposals 
by  20  July  2010.  In  total,  91  proposals  were  submitted  in  response  to  the  34  open  topics 
addressed  by  the  present  call,  involving  applicants  from  14  countries.  10  were  found  to  be 
ineligible  and  the  remaining  81  eligible  proposals  were  evaluated  by  89  independent 
experts. 

2.7.3.  Evaluation results  

The on-site evaluation of the proposals took place in Brussels between 13 and 17 September 
2010  following  the  methodology  described  in  Section  2.3.1.  It  was  preceded  by  individual 
remote  evaluations.  To  ensure  high  degree  of  transparency,  the  CS  JU  invited  one 
independent  observer  to  verify  if  the  evaluations  have  been  done  according  to  the  set 
evaluation guidelines and rules. The 81 eligible proposals have been evaluated by a total of 89 
technical independent experts, of which 33 external and 56 internal experts, representing 18 
different  nations.  48  proposals  passed  the  thresholds,  while  33  failed  one  or  more 
thresholds. 

In terms of covered technological areas, the 4 topics in Eco-Design and the only topic in GRC 
were successful. As to GRA, 3 out of the 4 topics in this demonstrator resulted in a winning 
proposal.  Topic  GRA-02-010  failed,  because  all  proposals  were  evaluated  below  threshold. 
Regarding  SAGE  and  SGO,  topics  SAGE-03-002,  SGO-02-027  and  SGO-04-001  did  not 
attract any proposals in their domains, while the proposals submitted in SAGE-05-011, SGO 
SGO-02-026 and SGO-02-028 could not pass the required thresholds.  

Thus, after the evaluation, 26 projects could be finalised. To sum up, the 7 topics remaining 
vacant were the following: 

•  ITD:  Green  Regional  Aircraft;  Area-02:  Low  noise  configurations;  Topic:  Advanced 
concepts for trailing edge morphing wings: design and manufacturing of test rig and test 
samples and lest execution; 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
•  ITD: Sustainable and Green Engines; Area-03: Large 3-shaft turbofan; Topic: Aeroengine 

intake technology development; 

•  ITD: Sustainable and Green Engines; Area-05: Turboshaft; Topic: Development of exhaust 

noise attenuation technologies; 

•  ITD:  Systems  for  Green  Operations;  Area-02:  Management  of  Aircraft  Energy;  Topic: 
Development  of  key  technology  components  for high  power-density  power  converters  for 
rotorcraft swashplate; 

•  ITD:  Systems  for  Green  Operations;  Area-02:  Management  of  Aircraft  Energy;  Topic: 

Modelica Model Library Development Part I; 

•  ITD:  Systems  for  Green  Operations;  Area-02:  Management  of  Aircraft  Energy;  Topic: 

Simulation and Analysis Tool Development Part I; 

•  ITD:  Systems  for  Green  Operations;  Area-02:  Management  of  Aircraft  Energy;  Topic: 

Support to design and test of cooling technologies; 

•  ITD: Systems for Green Operations; Area-04: Aircraft Demonstrators; Topic: Design and 
manufacture of an aircraft tractor compliant with specifications for Smart Operations on 
ground. 

The 26 proposals proposed for funding accounted for 48 participations from 11 countries. 
Of those, 23 (36.5%) came from academia and 10 (15.9%) were research institutions. The 
SME  participation  was  47.9%  (23  companies  were  SMEs),  requesting  a  total  funding  of  € 
5,611,076 (51.4% of the total requested funding).  

The  geographical  distribution  of  the  proposals  selected  for  funding  is  shown  in  the  graph 
below, the UK taking on the lead with 5 winning proposals, followed by France (4 proposals), 
Belgium and Germany (3 proposals each): 

Figure 9. CS JU call 5 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03). Proposals selected for funding per country 

2.7.4.  Grant agreements signed 

The  negotiations  of  the  26  proposals  proposed  for  funding  in  CS  JU  call  5  started  in 
November-December  2010.  Considering  that  the  average  time-to-grant  for  Clean  Sky’s 
projects  with  partners  in  2010  was  on  average  8.21  months,  by  the  time  of  writing  of  the 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
present  document  some  of  the  projects  were  still  under  negotiation.  In  Table  9  below  these 
projects are shown on positions 14-26 in italic.  

As  seen  in  the  table,  the  total  budget  requested  by  the  26  proposals  amounted  to  € 
10,907,844.60,  of  which  €  7,570,509.65  was  the  EU  contribution.  The  total  contribution 
under the GAPs signed by October 2011 – 13 contracts in total – equalled to € 5,559,856.60, 
of  which  the  EU  funding  was  €  3,939,931.65  and  the  in-kind  contribution  from  industry 
amounting to € 1,619,924.95. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
№ 

Project 
number 

Project acronym  Project title 

CS JU 
contribution 

In-kind 
contribution

Total 
contributions 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

271858 

271874 

DIMAG 

Development and Implementation of Magnesium sheets in A/C 

52,500.00 

17,500.00 

70,000.00 

WISMOS 

Wireless/Integrated Strain Monitoring and Simulation System 

183,125.00 

66,835.00 

249,960.00 

271691 

ADVANCED 

Advanced heating system and control mode for homogeneous high 
temperature curing of large composite repairs 

165,000.00 

55,000.00 

220,000.00 

271882 

271881 

FATIMA 

Fatigue testing of CFRP materials 

149,995.00 

49,999.00 

199,994.00 

ADAVES 

Advanced avionics equipment simulation 

185,000.00 

145,120.40 

330,120.40 

271880 

WHEXPERS 

Study and manufacturing of a Wasted Heat Exchanger and a hot air 
Piston Engine Recuperation System 

899,985.75 

299,995.25 

1,199,981.00 

7. 

271829 

NURMSYS 

Original design & manufacturing of a New Upstream Rotating 
Measurement System for gas turbine exhaust gases studies 

144,210.00 

58,070.00 

202,280.00 

8. 

9. 

271843 

NEXTWING 

Numerical and EXperimental shock conTrol on laminar Wing 

262,274.40 

87,424.80 

349,699.20 

271838 

LH-LHT-RFT 

Flight-tests with multi-functional coatings 

58,350.00 

58,350.00 

116,700.00 

10. 

271753 

VOCAL-FAN 

Virtual optimization CFD platform allowing fan noise reduction 

149,335.00 

49,780.00 

199,115.00 

11. 

271875 

AERTECVTI 

Test bench for endurance test and reliability prediction of avionics 
power electronic modules 

564,900.00 

188,300.00 

753,200.00 

12. 

271813 

SAFEPEM 

SAfe Fieldbus dEvelopment for Power Electronic Module 

357,100.00 

140,000.00 

497,100.00 

13. 

271847 

CLEOPATRA 

CLEaner OPerations Attained Through Radars' Advance 

447,644.00 

296,713.00 

744,357.00 

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) 

€ 3,619,419 

€ 1,513,087 

€ 5,132,507 

14. 

271861 

LEATOP 

Leading Edge Actuation Topology Design and Demonstration 

106,676.00 

43,059.00 

149,735.00 

15. 

271886 

NOISETTE 

Landing Gear Noise Attenuation 

114,643.00 

34,907.00 

149,550.00 

16. 

271872 

PPSMPAB 

Piezo Power Supply Module for Piezo Actuator Bench 

320,512.50 

106,837.50 

427,350.00 

17. 

271866 

CLFCWTE 

Development of a Closed Loop Flow Control Algorithm for Wing 
Trailing Edge Flow Control Including Experimental Validation in 

411,218.00 

137,073.00 

548,291.00 

EN 

41 

EN 

 
  
№ 

Project 
number 

Project acronym  Project title 

Two Low Speed Wind Tunnel Tests 

CS JU 
contribution 

In-kind 
contribution

Total 
contributions 

18. 

271855 

ROSIC 

Robust Silicon-Carbide Technology for Aerospace DC-DC 
Conversion 

303,426.00 

175,883.00 

479,309.00 

19. 

271853 

FOS3D 

Fibre Optic System for Deflection and Damage Detection 

448,670.00 

149,556.00 

598,226.00 

20. 

271784 

DEAFCON 

Wind Tunnel Model Design with Active Flow Control, for Low Speed 
Test 

164,250.00 

54,750.00 

219,000.00 

21. 

271765 

NAA-CROR 

Numerical aero-acoustic assessment of installed Counter Rotating 
Open Rotor (CROR) power plant 

150,000.00 

50,000.00 

200,000.00 

22. 

271815 

LOSPA 

Model Design and Manufacturing of the Turbofan Configuration for 
Low Speed Aerodynamic and Acoustic Testing 

978,754.00 

326,252.00 

1,305,006.00 

23. 

271788 

PEMREL 

Sample power electronic module construction for testing, 
characterisation and manufacturability assessment 

24. 

271850 

HPEM 

Development of key technology components for high performance 
electric 
motors 

337,141.00 

162,430.00 

499,571.00 

187,050.00 

62,350.00 

249,400.00 

25. 

271816 

26. 

271867 

NEELEFFECT 
INTHESKY 
LUBSEP8 

Magnetic Sensors with No Remanence for Aircraft Application 

428,750.00 

171,250.00 

600,000.00 

Test of advanced lubrication equipment 

--- 

--- 

349,900.00 

Sub-Total (Proposals in negotiation) 

TOTAL 

€ 3,951,091 

€ 1,474,348 

€ 5,775,338 

€ 7,570,510 

€ 2,987,435 

€ 10,907,845 

Table 9. Signed GAPs and proposals in negotiations in the CS JU call 5 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-03) 

8 

EN 

The  start  of  project  271867  –  LUBSEP  has  been  postponed  by  two  years  following  an  agreement  between  the  Partner  and  the  Topic  Manager;  the  project  was 
monitored by the CS JU and finally cancelled in 2011. 

42 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
2.8. 

Call 6 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04 

2.8.1. 

Summary information 

The Clean Sky JU published its sixth call for proposals on 27 July 2010. The call was open 
for 29 topics covering activities within all ITDs without the Technology Evaluator (TE). The 
29 open topics were grouped in 13 areas, further re-grouped under the six ITDs as shown in 
the table below: 

Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

JTI-CS-ECO 

Clean Sky – Eco-Design 

JTI-CS-ECO-01  Аrеa-01 – EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
ECO-01-008 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
ECO-01-009 

Development of thermoplastic polymer blend with 
low melting point and properties close to PEEK 
ones 

Moisture aging of composites – Time-
Temperature – Moisture superposition principle – 
Hydric fatigue 

JTI-СS-EСО-02  Area-02 – EDS (Eco-Design for Systems) 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
ECO-02-005 

Development, Construction and Integration of 
Systems for Ground Thermal Test Bench 

JTI-CS-GRA 

Clean Sky – Green Regional Aircraft 

JTI-CS-GRA-02  Area-02 – Low noise configurations 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
GRΑ-02-013 

Novel nose wheel evolution for noise reduction 

JTI-CS-GRA-03  Аrеа-03 – All electric aircraft 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
GRA-03-002 

Energy Management – Electrical motors power 
control. Analytical studies and modelling 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
GRA-03-003 

Development of Numerical Models of Aircraft 
Systems to be used within the JTI/GRA Shared 
Simulation Environment 

JTI-CS-GRA-05  Area-05 – New configurations 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
GRA-05-005 

Aero-acoustic noise emissions measure for 
advanced Regional Open Rotor A/C configuration

JTI-CS-GRC 

Clean Sky – Green Rotorcraft 

JTI-CS-GRC-01  Area-01 – Innovative Rotor Blades 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
GRC-01-005 

Gurney flap actuator and mechanism for a full 
scale helicopter rotor blade 

JTI-CS-GRC-02  Area-02 – Reduced drag of rotorcraft 

JTI-CS-2010-4-

Contribution to optimisation of heavy helicopter 

3 

2 

1 

4 

1 

2 

1 

3 

1 

2 

2,200 

1,650 

500 

200 

300 

1,700 

1,700 

2,650 

1,987.5 

150 

150 

500 

350 

150 

2,000 

2,000 

1,165 

873.75 

575 

575 

590 

440 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

GRC-02-003 

engine installation design 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
GRC-02-006 

Helicopter hub and fuselage drag investigation by 
means of hybrid URANS/LES methods 

150 

JTI-CS-SAGE 

Clean Sky – Sustainable and Green Engines 

JTI-CS-SAGE-03  Area-03 – Large 3-shaft turbofan 

10 

4 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SAGE-03-003 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SAGE-03-004 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SAGE-03-005 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SAGE-03-006 

High Efficiency Fuel Pumping 

Fuel Control System Sensors and Effectors 

High Temperature Electronics 

Ring Rolling of IN718 

7,950 

5,962.5 

3,800 

1,500 

1,300 

1,500 

1,000 

JTI-CS-SAGE-04  Area-04 – Geared Turbofan 

6 

4,150 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SAGE-04-001 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SAGE-04-002 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SAGE-04-003 

Development of low cost near conventional hot 
die forging process for gamma-TiAl low pressure 
turbine blades 

Development of near net shape isothermal forging 
process for gamma-TiAl low pressure turbine 
blades 

Development and validation of an integrated 
methodology to establish future production 
concepts 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SAGE-04-004 

Development of low cost casting process for 
gamma-TiAl billets 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SAGE-04-005 

Development & Manufacture of High 
Temperature Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic 
(CFRP) Aero engine Parts for Continuous Use at 
Temperatures above 350 ºC 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SAGE-04-006 

Machining of highly stressed components; 
Development of Precise Electrochemical 
Machining (PECM) Simulation 

JTI-CS-SFWA 

Clean Sky – Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft 

JTI-CS-SFWA-01  Area-01 – Smart Wing Technology 

5 

3 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SFWA-01-013 

Active Flow Control (AFC) techniques on trailing 
edge shroud for improved high lift configurations 
– design, manufacture and tests 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SFWA-01-028 

Structural tests on smart droop nose device with 
regards to aircraft level 

JTI·CS-2010-4-

Development, design and manufacture and test of 

650 

600 

1,000 

550 

850 

500 

2,105 

1,578.75 

1,455 

460 

745 

250 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

SFWA-01-029 

AFC actuator controller with industrial purposes 
and certification issues 

JTI-CS-SFWA-02  Area-02 – New Configuration 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SFWA-02-010 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SFWA-02-011 

Innovative shield design and manufacturing 

Impact test campaign 

JTI-CS-SGO 

Clean Sky – Systems for Green Operations 

JTI-CS-SGO-02  Area-02 – Management of Aircraft Energy 

JTI-C3-2010-4-
SGO-02-014 

Construction of evaluation Power Modules (10) to 
a given design 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SGO-02-030 

Test rig for endurance and reliability trials 
applied on TRL growth of high power Starter / 
Generators 

2 

4 

2 

650 

250 

400 

2,750 

2,062.5 

2,250 

250 

2,000 

JTI-CS-SGO-03  Area-03 – Management of Trajectory and 

2 

500 

Mission 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SGO-03-009 

Propfan equipped aircraft noise model 

JTI-CS-2010-4-
SGO-03-010 

High speed numerical integration techniques for 
precise prediction 

350 

150 

TOTAL  

29 

18,820 

14,115 

Table 10. CS JU call 6 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04). Topics overview 

The call process was managed by the Clean Sky JU, according to the principles of excellence, 
transparency,  fairness  and  impartiality,  confidentiality,  efficiency,  speed  and  ethical 
considerations.  

The timing for the call is given on Figure 10 below: 

Figure 10. Timeline of the CS JU call 6 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04) 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  total  indicative  budget  of  the  call  was  set  to  €  18,820,000,  of  which  the  EU 
contribution could be up to € 14,115,000 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated). 

2.8.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted 

The call was published on 27 July 2010 and applicants were invited to submit their proposals 
by  12  October  2010.  In  total,  68  proposals  involving  applicants  from  12  countries  were 
received. Out of those 68 proposals, 64 were considered eligible for evaluation. 

2.8.3.  Evaluation results 

The on-site evaluation of the proposals took place in Brussels between 8 and 12 November 
2010  following  the  methodology  described  in  Section  2.3.1.  It  was  preceded  by  individual 
remote  evaluations.  To  ensure  high  degree  of  transparency,  the  CS  JU  invited  the  same 
independent observer as in the fifth call to verify if the evaluations have been done according 
to the set evaluation guidelines and rules. Out of the 64 proposals, 40 passed the thresholds, 
while 24 failed one or more thresholds. 

In terms of covered technological areas, the 3 topics in GRC and all 10 topics in SAGE were 
successful. As to Eco-Design, 2 out of the 3 topics in this demonstrator resulted in a winning 
proposal. Topic ECO-02-005 failed, because the only proposal received was evaluated below 
threshold.  Regarding  GRA,  SFWA  and  SGO,  topics  GRA-02-013,  SFWA-01-028  and 
SFWA-02-010 did not attract any proposals in their domains, while the proposals submitted in 
SGO-02-014 could not pass the set thresholds.  

Thus, after the evaluation, 24 projects could be finalised. To sum up, the 5 topics remaining 
vacant were the following: 

•  ITD:  Eco-Design;  Area-02:  EDS  (Eco-Design  for  Systems);  Topic:  Development, 

Construction and Integration of Systems for Ground Thermal Test Bench; 

•  ITD:  Green  Regional  Aircraft;  Area-02:  Low  noise  configurations;  Topic:  Novel  nose 

wheel evolution for noise reduction; 

•  ITD: Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft; Area-01: Smart Wing Technology; Topic: Structural tests 

on smart droop nose device with regards to aircraft level; 

•  ITD:  Smart  Fixed  Wing  Aircraft;  Area-02:  New  Configuration;  Topic:  Innovative  shield 

design and manufacturing; 

•  ITD:  Systems  for  Green  Operations;  Area-02:  Management  of  Aircraft  Energy;  Topic: 

Construction of evaluation Power Modules (10) to a given design. 

The  24  proposals  proposed  for  funding  accounted  for  54  participations  from  9  European 
countries.  Of  those,  15  (27.8%)  participants  came  from  academia  and  9  (16.7%)  were 
research institutions. The SME participation was 25.9% (14 companies), requesting a total 
funding of € 3,637,485 (21.8% of the total requested funding).  

The  geographical  distribution  of  the  proposals  selected  for  funding  is  shown  in  the  graph 
below, the UK and Germany being on the lead with 8 and 7 winning proposals respectively, 
followed by Spain (3 proposals): 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
Figure 11. CS JU call 6 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04). Proposals selected for funding per country 

2.8.4.  Grant agreements signed 

The negotiations of the 24 proposals proposed for funding in CS JU call 6 started in January-
February  2011.  Considering  that  the  average  time-to-grant  for  Clean  Sky’s  projects  with 
partners in 2010 was on average 8.21 months, by the time of writing of the present document 
the majority of the projects were still under negotiation. In Table 11 below these projects are 
shown on positions 8-24 in italic. 

As  seen  in  the  table,  the  total  budget  requested  by  the  24  proposals  amounted  to  € 
16,710,420.40, of which € 10,712,291.30 was the EU contribution. The total contribution 
under the GAPs signed by October 2011 – 7 contracts in total – equalled to € 4,509,931.60, 
of  which  the  EU  funding  was  €  3,168,047.30  and  the  in-kind  contribution  from  industry 
amounting to € 1,341,884.30. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
№ 

Project 
number 

Project acronym 

Project title 

1. 

278144 

SUPERBLEND 

Development of Thermoplastic Polymer blend with Low Melting 
Point and with Similar Properties than PEEK 

CS JU 
contribution

In-kind 
contribution

Total 
contributions 

149,628.00 

49,876.00 

199,504.00 

2. 

277796 

E-BIRD 

Development of numerical models of aircraft systems to be used 
within the JTI/GRA Shared Simulation Environment 

112,500.00 

37,500.00 

150,000.00 

3. 

278419 

WENEMOR 

Wind tunnel tests for the evaluation of the installation effects of noise 
emissions of an open rotor advanced regional aircraft 

1,374,993.00 

578,334.20 

1,953,327.20 

4. 

278393 

PT656 

Gurney flap actuator and mechanism for a full scale helicopter rotor 
blade 

371,063.00 

289,553.00 

660,616.00 

5. 

278416 

HEAVYCOPTER  Contribution to optimisation of heavy helicopter engine installation 

329,400.00 

109,800.00 

439,200.00 

design 

6. 

7. 

278415 

277927 

HELIDES 

Helicopter Drag Prediction using Detached-Eddy Simulation 

110,463.30 

36,821.10 

147,284.40 

IMAPC 

Development and validation of an integrated methodology in order to 
establish adapted production concepts for efficient turbofan engines 

720,000.00 

240,000.00 

960,000.00 

Sub-Total (signed GAPs) 

8. 

278156 

CF-THREAD 

Composites under Fatigue: Temperature and Humidity Related 
Environmental Ageing Damage 

€ 3,168,047 

€ 1,341,884 

€ 4,509,931 

224,749.00 

74,914.00 

299,663.00 

9. 

278407 

SIMEAD 

Suite of integrated models for electrical aircraft drives 

261,453.00 

87,150.00 

348,603.00 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

278228 

278366 

278365 

278288 

ADEPT 

CASE 

HITME 

CORR 

High Efficiency Fuel Pumping 

711,608.00 

711,607.00 

1,423,215.00 

Fuel Control System Sensors and Effectors 

655,991.00 

579,189.00 

1,235,180.00 

High Temperature Electronics 

Introduction of contoured ring rolled parts for critical rotative aero 
engine applications 

901,200.00 

584,890.40 

1,486,090.40 

520,013.00 

423,903.00 

943,916.00 

14. 

278084 

DAFNE 

Development of gamma-TiAl forgings in a low-cost near conventional 
hot-die process and process evaluation 

326,250.00 

313,650.00 

639,900.00 

EN 

48 

EN 

 
  
№ 

Project 
number 

Project acronym 

Project title 

15. 

278438 

HI-POTENTIAL 

Highly Innovative Isothermal Forging of Gamma-TiAl Alloy for LPT 
blades 

CS JU 
contribution

In-kind 
contribution

Total 
contributions 

284,408.00 

284,409.00 

568,817.00 

16. 

277741 

DATACAST 

Development of a low cost Advanced gamma Titanium Aluminide 
Casting Technology 

323,000.00 

227,000.00 

550,000.00 

17. 

278483 

HICOMP 

Development and Manufacture of High Temperature Composite Aero 
Engine Parts 

376,555.00 

376,557.00 

753,112.00 

18. 

278302 

SUPREME 

Simulation tool for precise electrochemical machining of aircraft 
engine components 

361,817.00 

120,605.00 

482,422.00 

19. 

277975 

ATTESI 

Active Flow Control Technique on Trailing Edge Shroud for 
Improved High Lift Configurations 

344,834.00 

114,946.60 

459,780.60 

20. 

278268 

ESTERA 

Multi-level Embedded Closed-Loop Control System for Fluidic Active 
Flow Control Actuation Applied in High-Lift and High-Speed Aircraft 
Operations 

187,470.00 

62,490.00 

249,960.00 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

278368 

277861 

IMPTEST 

Impact test campaign 

VEGETEBLE 

Test rig for endurance and reliability trials applied on TRL growth of 
high power Starter / Generators 

285,467.00 

95,155.00 

380,622.00 

1,419,935.00 

479,945.00 

1,899,880.00 

277580 

FLIGHT-NOISE-II  Turboprop and Propfan-Equipped Aircraft Noise Emission Model 

247,179.00 

82,393.00 

329,572.00 

278170 

NEURAL 

Neural network computation for fast trajectory prediction 

112,316.00 

37,439.00 

149,755.00 

Sub-Total (Proposals in negotiation) 

TOTAL 

€ 7,544,244 

€ 4,656,245 

€ 12,200,489 

€ 10,712,291 

€ 5,998,129 

€ 16,710,420 

Table 11. Signed GAPs and proposals in negotiations in the CS JU call 6 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-04) 

EN 

49 

EN 

 
  
2.9. 

Call 7 SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05 

2.9.1. 

Summary information 

The Clean Sky JU published its seventh call for proposals on 24 September 2010. The call 
was open for 38 topics covering activities within all ITDs without the Technology Evaluator 
(TE). The 38 open topics were grouped in 15 areas, further re-grouped under the six ITDs as 
shown in the table below: 

Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

JTI-CS-ECO 

Clean Sky – Eco-Design 

JTI-CS-ECO-01  Area-01 – EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
ECO-01-010 

Study of cyanate ester based composites in a high 
service temperature environment 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
ECO-01-011 

Bicarbonate media blasting for paint-varnish 
removal and dry surface treatment 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
ECO-01-012 

Development of more eco-efficient aluminium 
alloys for aircraft structures 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
ECO-01-013 

Development and implementation of conductive 
coating for Magnesium sheets in A/C 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
ECO-01-014 

Infusion system development for primary structure

JTI-CS-2010-5-
ECO-01-015 

Development of advanced preforms for LCM 
technologies 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
ECO-01-016 

Surface mapping to improve reliability of dry 
treatment on metallic and organic surfaces 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
ECO-01-017 

Production of yarns and fabrics based on recycled 
carbon fibres (CFs) 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
ECO-01-018 

Environmental Data Models and Interface 
development 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

11 

9 

5,230 

3,922.5 

3,030 

400 

300 

500 

160 

200 

250 

250 

250 

720 

JTI-CS-ECO-02  Area-02 – EDS (Eco-Design for Systems) 

2 

2,200 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
ECO-02-006 

Electrical Test Bench Power Center 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
ECO-02-007 

Electrical Test Bench Control System, 
Instrumentation and Cabling 

JTI-CS-GRA 

Clean Sky – Green Regional Aircraft 

JTI-CS-GRA-01  Area-01 – Low weight configurations 

2 

1 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
GRA-01-034 

Design, manufacturing and impact test on selected 
panels with advanced composite material 

700 

1,500 

620 

170 

170 

465 

JTI-CS-GRA-02  Area-02 – Low noise configurations 

1 

450 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
GRA-02-014 

Wing loads control/alleviation system design for 
advanced regional Turbo-Fan A/C configuration 

450 

JTI-CS-GRC 

Clean Sky - Green Rotorcraft 

JTI-CS-GRC-03  Area-03 – Integration of innovative electrical 

7 

2 

systems 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
GRC-03-004 

Innovative management of energy recovery for 
reduction of electrical power consumption on fuel 
consumption 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
GRC-03-005 

Adaptation kit design & manufacturing: APU 
Driving System 

11,580 

8,685 

930 

500 

430 

JTI-CS-GRC-04  Area-04 – Installation of diesel engines on light 

2 

9,950 

helicopters 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
GRC-04-003 

Optimised Diesel engine design matching a new 
light helicopter architecture 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
GRC-04-004 

Diesel Power-pack Integration on a light 
helicopter demonstrator 

JTI-CS-GRC-05  Area-05 – Environmentally friendly flight paths

1 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
GRC-05-004 

Tuning of simplified rotorcraft noise models, 
preliminary acoustic measurement test campaign 

JTI-CS-GRC-06  Area-06 – Eco-Design for Rotorcraft 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
GRC-06-001 

Manufacturing of a Thermoplastic Composite 
Feasibility Article for a Helicopter Door 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
GRC-06-002 

Manufacturing of thermoplastic structural 
demonstrators 

JTI-CS-SAGE 

Clean Sky – Sustainable and Green Engines 

JTI-CS-SAGE-03  Area-03 – Large 3-shaft turbofan 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SAGE-03-007 

Large 3-shaft Demonstrator – Core 
Turbomachinery – High Temperature Flexible 
PCB 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SAGE-03-008 

Large 3-shaft Demonstrator – Structural Surface 
Cooler development 

JTI-CS-SAGE-04  Area-04 – Geared Turbofan 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SAGE-04-002 

Development of Innovative SLM-Machinery for 
High Temperature Aero Engine Applications 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SAGE-04-007 

Development of Selective Laser Melting (SLM) 
Simulation tool for Aero Engine applications 

JTI-CS-SFWA 

Clean Sky - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft 

JTI-CS-SFWA-01  Area-01 – Smart Wing Technology 

2 

4 

2 

2 

8 

6 

650 

9,300 

300 

300 

400 

200 

200 

5,400 

2,600 

600 

2,000 

2,800 

1,800 

1,000 

4,050 

3,999 

2,999.25 

1,842 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Identification 

ITD-Area-Topic 

Nr of 
topics

Indicative 
budget 
(K€) 

Maximum 
funding 
(K€) 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SFWA-01-007 

In field surface inspection tool for contamination 
detection before bonded composite repair 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SFWA-01-014 

Final design and manufacturing of a test set up for 
the investigation of gust load alleviation 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SFWA-01-030 

Quantification of the degradation of 
microstructured coatings 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SFWA-01-031 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SFWA-01-032 

Assessment of the interaction of a passive and an 
active load alleviation scheme for a transport 
aircraft 

Technology evaluation and manufacturing of 
microtechnology-based Active Flow Control 
actuators 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SFWA-01-033 

Numerical Simulation of the Assembly Tolerances 
for NLF Wings 

JTI-CS-SFWA-03  Area-03 – Flight Demonstrators 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SFWA-03-004 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SFWA-03-005 

A340 Outer Wing Metrology 

Surface quality measurement in flight 

JTI-CS-SGO 

Clean Sky – Systems for Green Operations 

JTI-CS-SGO-02  Area-02 – Management of Aircraft Energy 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SGO-02-027 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SGO-02-031 

Simulation and Analysis Tool Development Part I 

Qualification of insulation materials to engine oils

2 

6 

2 

250 

400 

200 

200 

300 

492 

2,157 

1,457 

700 

3,700 

2,775 

550 

400 

150 

JTI-CS-SGO-03  Area-03 – Management of Trajectory and 

3 

1,150 

Mission 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SGO-03-011 

Recruitment of qualified flight crew (test, airline) 
and expenses for tests 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SGO-03-012 

SOG Wheel Actuator development for existing 
aircraft 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SGO-03-013 

Economic analysis according to business jets 
operators profile 

JTI-CS-SGO-04  Area-04 – Aircraft Demonstrators 

1 

JTI-CS-2010-5-
SGO-04-001 

Design and manufacture of an aircraft tractor 
compliant with specifications for Smart 
Operations on ground 

250 

650 

250 

2,000 

2,000 

TOTAL  

38 

30,529 

22,897 

Table 12. CS JU call 7 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05). Topics overview 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The call process was managed by the Clean Sky JU, according to the principles of excellence, 
transparency,  fairness  and  impartiality,  confidentiality,  efficiency,  speed  and  ethical 
considerations.  

The timing for the call is given on Figure 12 below: 

Figure 12. Timeline of the CS JU call 7 (SP1-JTI-CS-2010-05) 

The  total  indicative  budget  of  the  call  was  set  to  €  30,529,000,  of  which  the  EU 
contribution could be up to € 22,896,750 (50-75% of the topic maximum budget indicated). 

2.9.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted 

The  call  was  published  on  24  September  2010  and  applicants  were  invited  to  submit  their 
proposals by 9 December 2010. In total, 71 proposals involving applicants from 17 countries 
were received. Out of those 71 proposals, 67 were considered eligible for evaluation. 

2.9.3.  Evaluation results 

The  on-site  evaluation  of  the  proposals  took  place  in  Brussels  between  17  and  21  January 
2011  following  the  methodology  described  in  Section  2.3.1.  It  was  preceded  by  individual 
remote  evaluations.  To  ensure  high  degree  of  transparency,  the  CS  JU  invited  one 
independent  observer  to  verify  if  the  evaluations  have  been  done  according  to  the  set 
evaluation guidelines and rules. Clean Sky started the negotiation of the successful projects in 
February-March  2011.  The  grant  agreements  signature  of  the  selected  29  proposals  and  the 
payment of pre-financing were expected to be concluded by the first quarter of 2012. 

Taking into consideration this timeline, the Commission shall present the results of the Clean 
Sky JU's seventh call for proposals in its next year's report on the progress achieved by the 
JTI JUs. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
3. 

PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY THE INNOVATIVE MEDICINES INITIATIVE (IMI) JU 

3.1. 

About the IMI JU 

The  Innovative  Medicines  Initiative  Joint  Undertaking  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  "IMI  JU") 
has been established by Council Regulation (EC) 73/2008 of 20 December 2007 as a public-
private  partnership  between  the  pharmaceutical  industry,  represented  by  the  European 
Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)9, and the European Union, 
represented by the European Commission.  

The IMI JU has been set up for a period up to 31 December 2017 with the main objectives to 
build  a  collaborative  eco-system  for  pharmaceutical  R&D  in  Europe10  and  to  speed  up  the 
development of more effective and safer medicines for patients. In achieving this, IMI creates 
large-scale  networks  of  innovation  in  pharmaceutical  research.  Joining  forces  in  the  IMI 
research  and  training  projects,  large  pharmaceutical  companies  and  SMEs,  academia, 
regulatory agencies and patients' organisations cooperate with each other to tackle the major 
challenges in drug development and to act towards improving people's health.  

The  objectives  of  the  IMI  JU  are  achieved  through  coordination  of  research  activities  that 
pool  resources  from  public  and  private  sectors.  These  activities  are  carried  out  by  the 
members of the EFPIA directly and by partners selected through open and competitive calls 
for proposals.  

To  perform  its  goals,  IMI  has  identified  four  priority  areas  ("pillars")11,  in  which  joint 
research projects of industry and research institutions can get financial support: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

9 

10 
11 

Improving  the  Predictivity  of  Safety  Evaluation  (Pillar  I):  addressing  predictive 
toxicology and risk assessment; 

Improving  the  Predictivity  of  Efficacy  Evaluation  (Pillar  II):  addressing  predictive 
pharmacology,  biomarkers  identification  and  validation,  patient  recruitment  and  risk 
assessment; 

Knowledge Management (Pillar  III): leveraging  the potential of new  technologies to 
analyse a huge amount of information in an integrative and predictive way; 

Education and Training (Pillar IV): addressing gaps in expertise needed to change and 
support the biopharmaceutical research and development process. 

EFPIA's  mission  is  to  promote  pharmaceutical  research  and  development  in  Europe  and  to  create  a 
favourable economic, regulatory and political environment, enabling the research-based pharmaceutical 
industry to meet the growing healthcare needs and expectations of patients. In 2010, the members of the 
EFPIA  comprise  of  31  European  national  pharmaceutical  associations  and  38  companies  undertaking 
research, development and manufacturing of medicinal products for human use. 

The EU Member States and the countries associated to the FP7. 

The  four  pillars  are  defined  in  the  original  IMI  Scientific  Research  Agenda  (2008)  and  address  the 
principal causes of delay in the biomedical R&D process. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The maximum total budget of the IMI JU is set to € 2  billion, of which the EU contribution of 
€  1  billion  should  be  at  least  matched  with  an   in-kind  contribution  by  the  members  of  the 
EFPIA.  The  EU  contribution  is  paid  from  the  appropriations  in  the  general  budget  of  the 
European Union allocated to theme "Health" of Specific Programme "Cooperation" under the 
Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union (2007-2013). 

The governance structure of IMI consists of three bodies: the Governing Board, the Executive 
Director and the Scientific Committee. Furthermore, the IMI JU is supported by two external 
advisory bodies: the States Representatives Group and the Stakeholder Forum. 

3.2.  Main activities of the IMI JU in 2010 

After  its  establishment,  IMI  gradually  developed  an  operational  capacity,  and  on  16 
November  2009  has  been  granted  administrative  and  operational  autonomy  from  the 
European Commission12. Thus, 2010 was the first full year of independent functioning of the 
Joint Undertaking. 

Key milestones 

In line with the major objectives set in the IMI Annual Implementation Plan 201013, the IMI's 
most significant achievements during the year were: 

•  Kick-off of the research projects from the 2008 call for proposals, following conclusion of 

the respective grant agreements; 

•  Evaluation, selection and negotiation of the research projects submitted in the 2009 call for 

proposals; 

•  Launch of the 2010 call for proposals; 

•  Establishment of Overheads Policy; 
•  Publication of a guidance note on how to apply the IMI Intellectual Property Policy14; 

•  Launch of the new IMI website including an electronic partner search tool; 

•  Setting-up of an internal audit function within the IMI's operational structure. 

In  parallel,  several  actions  have  been  taken  during  the  year  in  preparation  for  the  key 
objectives set for 2011. These included: 

•  Further  amendment  of  the  model  IMI  JU  grant  agreement  and  completion  of  the  IMI 

Financial Guidelines; 

12 

13 

14 

Pursuant to Art. 16 (1) of Council Regulation (EC) 73/2008, the Commission was responsible for the 
establishment and initial operation of the IMI JU until it gained operational capacity to implement its 
own budget. 

The Annual Implementation Plan describes the activities of the IMI JU planned for the following year 
and the corresponding expenditure estimates. It is subject to approval by the Governing Board. 

Compliant with the provisions set in Art. 15 of Council Regulation (EC) 73/2008 stating that distinct 
rules  on  IP  should  be  adopted  to  ensure  that  the  intellectual  property  generated  in  the  performed 
research activities is protected and results are used and properly disseminated. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Revision  of  the  IMI  Scientific  Research  Agenda15  and  definition  of  the  topics  for  future 

calls; 

•  Enhancement of communication activities on the basis of the first results achieved in the 

research projects; 

•  Organisation of ex-post audit activities. 

After  IMI  became  autonomous  in  November  2009,  the  number  of  IMI  staff  members 
increased  to  22.  In  accordance  with  the  adopted Staff  Policy  Plan  2010-2012,  this  aimed  to 
ensure the full operational capacity of the IMI Executive Office to the limit given by the then 
temporary  housing  at  the  Covent  Garden  building  in  Brussels.  The  organised  recruitment 
filled in also the position of the new internal auditor.  

In  addition,  the  procedure  for  procuring  a  permanent  IMI  location  was  concluded  in  close 
collaboration  with  the  European  Commission  jointly  with  the  other  JTI  JUs.  IMI  moved 
successfully into its new premises in the White Atrium building in Brussels in January 2011. 
The procedure for procuring the IT infrastructure for the new offices was also completed in 
2010. 

In  2010,  IMI  started  defining  its  internal  processes  related  to  the  adopted  Internal  Control 
Standards, and established its own internal audit capability. In September – November 2010, 
IMI conducted its first risk assessment exercise. The conclusions of the IMI's management on 
its  first  year  of  independent  functioning  was  that  the  progress  made  in  establishment  and 
development  of  key  internal  control  systems  has  been  satisfactory  and  in  line  with  the 
expectations. 

Governance 

The IMI Governing Board held three meetings in 2010.  

At the 7th Governing Board meeting on 16 March 2010 a new chair and a deputy-chair were 
appointed.  The  Annual  Activity  Report  2009  and  Annual  Implementation  Plan  2010  were 
adopted. The Governing Board approved the ranked list of Expressions of Interest of the first 
stage of the call for proposals launched in 2009. It also started a first round of amendments to 
the model grant agreement. 

The 8th Governing Board meeting, which took place on 20 July 2010, was concluded with a 
decision to produce a statement on the Board's position on the future of the IMI JU beyond 
2014.  

The last for the year 9th Governing Board meeting on 14 December 2010 initiated discussions 
on  intellectual  property  issues,  financial  questions  related  to  the  costs  methodology  for 
overheads  and  in-kind  contributions,  as  well  as  a  debate  on  the  IMI  Scientific  Research 
Agenda and the topics for the fourth call for proposals planned for 2011. 

15 

The IMI Scientific Research Agenda is a multiannual research plan, setting out the research priorities of 
IMI. The priorities for each year are detailed in the IMI Annual Implementation Plan. 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Scientific  Committee  and  the  States  Representatives  Group  each  met  twice  in  2010, 
providing  advice  on  the  revision  of  the  IMI  Scientific  Research  Agenda  and  the  scientific 
priorities annexed to the Annual Implementation Plan 2011. 

The first Stakeholder Forum, acting as an external advisory body to IMI, took place on 14-15 
June  2010  in  Brussels.  The  meeting  gathered  together  more  than  200  high-level  industry 
representatives,  regulators,  policy  makers,  scientific  experts,  patient  representatives  and 
science leaders. The event featured presentations and discussions on the ongoing IMI projects, 
the IMI Scientific Research Agenda, the research topics in the planned third call for proposals 
launched in October 2010 and the IMI Intellectual Property Policy. 

Communications activities 

The  IMI  communication  activities  in  2010  were  focused  on  maintaining  and  upgrading  the 
established  relations  with  its  stakeholders.  This  was  achieved  through  a  number  of 
communication  events  held  in  Brussels  during  the  year.  The  most  significant  were  the 
Stakeholder  Forum  on  14-15  June  and  the  Open  Info/Thematic  Day  on  the  2010  call  for 
proposals. During this day, organised on the date of the publication of the call – 22 October 
2010,  academic  teams  and  representatives  of  patient  organisations,  regulators,  SMEs, 
hospitals  and  other  interested  parties received  information  on  the  call  topics  and  practical 
details on the participation in IMI projects.  

Furthermore,  several  press  releases  related  to  the  IMI's  activities  and  published  calls,  and 
articles/features  on  important  topics  have  been  published  throughout  the  year.  In  addition, 
members  of  the  IMI  Executive  Office  held  presentations  on  the  Initiative's  mission  during 
scientific  conferences,  symposia  and  specialists  gatherings.  The  latter  were  an  important 
opportunity for IMI to promote its corporate image and raise  awareness  and  visibility of its 
activities in accordance with its communication strategy.  

In  2010,  IMI  launched  its  new  website  (http://www.imi.europa.eu)  with  changed  vision  and 
improved  navigation,  aiming  to  present  timely  and  up-to-date  information  on  its  activities, 
calls for proposals and ongoing research projects. A special online partner tool was created to 
facilitate  the  search  for  potential  partners  to  prepare  EoIs  in  response  to  IMI's  calls  for 
proposals. In September, IMI published the first issue of its electronic newsletter. 

Calls for proposals 

The IMI JU selects projects through  open  and competitive calls for proposals following a 
two-stage submission and evaluation process. Calls for proposals are published annually. 

Each call for proposal provides a number of topics based on the scientific priorities set in the 
IMI Annual Implementation Plan, which in turn is based on the four identified priority areas 
("pillars") described in Section 2.1. The call topics are defined by a group of pharmaceutical 
companies – members of the EFPIA, specialists in the respective field. These companies form 
the  EFPIA  consortia  and  are  "leading"  each  topic.  The  EFPIA  member  companies  are  not 
beneficiaries, but provide an in-kind contribution to the projects. 

In  the  first  stage  of  IMI's  calls  (referred  to  also  as  "Stage  1")  the  call  for  proposals  is 
announced.  Interested  parties  from  academia,  SMEs,  patient  organisations,  regulatory 
agencies  and  large  non-EFPIA  companies  are  invited  to  form  applicant  consortia  and  to 
submit their Expressions of Interest (EoIs) in response to the call. A first peer review is then 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
performed, resulting in a shortlist of top-ranked consortia. The applicant consortia of the best 
ranked EoIs and the EFPIA consortium already associated to the topic are invited to form a 
full  project  consortium.  They  prepare  together  a  Full  Project  Proposal  (FPP)  containing  a 
draft  project  agreement,  which  shall  be  concluded  by  the  members  of  the  consortium 
governing their relationship. 

In  the  second  stage  of  IMI's  calls  (referred  to  as  "Stage  2"),  FPPs  are  evaluated  through  a 
second  peer  review  based  on  the  consistency  with  the  original  EoI,  scientific  excellence, 
quality of the implementation plan and potential impact. Ethical issues are also considered at 
this  stage16.  Only  FPPs  that  have  been  favourably  reviewed  in  Stage  2  of  the  call  can  be 
selected for funding. The selected full project consortia are invited then to conclude a grant 
agreement governing their relationship with the IMI JU. 

The last step before signing the grant agreement is the negotiation of the contract managed by 
the IMI Executive Office. The objective is to agree on the technical details of the project and 
to collect financial and legal information needed for preparing the grant agreement. 

Figure 13. IMI JU calls for proposals. Submission and evaluation process 

As  a  result  of  the  calls,  the  IMI  JU  launches  a  new  set  of  collaborative  research17  and/or 
training projects every year. In line with the identified four priority areas ("pillars"), many 
IMI  projects  cope  with  socially  significant  diseases  such  as  cancer,  brain  disorders  and 
inflammatory,  metabolic  and  infectious  diseases.  Other  projects  focus  on  knowledge 
management  and  on improving predictions  of  safety  of  new  medicines.  An  additional  focus 

16 

17 

The objective of the ethical review is to ensure that the IMI JU supports research activities which are 
compliant with the fundamental ethical principles referred to in Art. 6 of Decision 1982/2006/EC on the 
Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development 
and demonstration activities (2007-2013). 

A funding scheme broadly used in the FP7 designating research projects carried out by consortia with 
participants  from  different  countries,  aiming  at  developing  new  knowledge,  technology,  products, 
demonstration activities or common resources for research.  

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
for  IMI  is  education  and  training  to  narrow  the  gaps  in  expertise  in  biomedical  R&D 
knowledge and skills.  

Already a total of 23 projects from the first two waves of the calls for proposals launched in 
2008  and  2009  are  underway.  They  are  studying  areas  such  as  schizophrenia,  rheumatoid 
arthritis, asthma, chronic pain, electronic health records, safety in qualifying biomarkers and 
standards for modelling and simulation tools. The third wave was planned to include projects 
on autism, tuberculosis, diabetes and the safety of drugs and vaccines. 

The  present  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  shall  review  the  submission  and 
evaluation results of the IMI's second call for proposals published in November 2009, which – 
due to their timeline – were not included in the Commission's Annual Report on the progress 
achieved  by  the  JTI  JUs  in  2009.  It  shall  give  also  an  overview  on  the  IMI's  third  call  for 
proposals launched in October 2010, the detailed results of which will be presented in the next 
year's Commission report. 

3.3. 

Call 2 IMI_Call_2009_2 

3.3.1. 

Summary information 

IMI published its second call for proposals on 27 November 2009. Any company, university, 
research organisation,  or  other entity  carrying out activities relevant to the  objectives  of the 
IMI JU in the EU Member States or countries associated with the FP7 could participate in the 
call by submitting an Expression of Interest through engaging in applicant consortia.  

The  following  legal  entities  were  eligible  for  funding  by  the  IMI  JU:  SMEs18,  non-profit 
public  bodies,  non-profit  research  organisations,  intergovernmental  organisations,  legal 
entities  established  under  Community  law,  secondary  and  higher  education  establishments 
and  non-profit  patients'  organisations.  Any  other  legal  entities  were  supposed  to  bear  their 
own costs for participating in an IMI project. 

The 2009 call for proposals included nine topics. They were based on the scientific priorities 
annexed  to  the  IMI  Annual  Implementation  Plan  2009  and  were  formulated  by  the  relevant 
EFPIA  consortia  under  two  strategic  areas  for  intervention  –  Pillar  II:  Improving  the 
Predictivity of Efficacy Evaluation and Pillar III: Knowledge Management. The call topics are 
listed in the table below: 

№  Topic 

Pillar II: Improving the Predictivity of Efficacy Evaluation 

1. 

Imaging biomarkers for anticancer drug development 

2.  New tools for target validation to improve drug efficacy 

3.  Molecular biomarkers: accelerating cancer therapy development and refining patient care 

4. 

Identification and development of rapid point-of-care diagnostic tests for bacterial 
diagnosis to facilitate conduct of clinical trials and clinical practice 

18 

Within  the  meaning  of  Commission  Recommendation  2003/361/EC  of  6  May  2003  concerning  the 
definition of micro, small- and medium-sized enterprises. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.  Understanding aberrant adaptive immunity mechanisms 

6. 

Translational research in chronic immune-mediated disease: bridging between animal 
models and humans 

Pillar III: Knowledge Management  

7.  Drug/disease modelling: library & framework 

8.  Open pharmacological space 

9.  Electronic health records 

Table 13. Topics of the IMI JU 2009 call for proposals 

The areas of cancer, infectious diseases and inflammation were set as priorities in Pillar II in 
2009, while the focus in Pillar III was put on the standardisation, free access, interoperability 
and  exchange  of  data  relevant  for  drug  discovery  and  development,  including  databases  for 
drug/disease models and small molecules, and on the establishment of a frame for access and 
exchange of clinical/healthcare data. 

The timeline of the IMI's 2009 call for proposals is shown on Figure 14 below: 

Figure 14. Timeline of the IMI JU 2009 call for proposals 

The  call  process,  managed  by  the  IMI  Executive  Office,  was  conducted  following  the 
principles  of  excellence,  transparency,  fairness  and  impartiality,  confidentiality,  efficiency, 
speed  and  ethical  considerations.  It  has  been  performed  according  to  the  IMI  Rules  for 
submission, evaluation and selection of Expressions of Interests and Full Project Proposals. 
The projects have been implemented under the IMI JU model grant agreement. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
The total indicative budget of the call included a maximum EU financial contribution of € 
76.8 million19 and in-kind contributions from the research-based companies members of the 
EFPIA estimated at € 79.5 million.  

3.3.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted 

The call was published on 27 November 2009 and the applicants were invited to submit their 
Expressions  of  Interest  in  two  months'  time,  by  8  February  2010.  The  EoIs  had  to  be 
submitted  by  the  applicant  consortia  electronically  via  a  web-based  service  specifically 
designed by the IMI JU for that purpose. 

In total, 124 Expressions of Interest involving 1,188 applicants from 39 different countries 
were received. Out of those 124 EoIs, 6 were ineligible due to incomplete application forms 
or applications submitted under a wrong topic. 118 EoIs were eligible for evaluation. 

Of  the  total  1,188  applicants,  77.2%  came  from  academia,  17.9%  were  SMEs  and  4.9% 
represented  other  type  of  legal  entities,  such  as  patient  organisations,  agencies/regulatory 
organisations,  other  industry  associations  or  non-EFPIA  companies  larger  than  SMEs.  The 
participation of the different types of applicants in the submitted EoIs is displayed in the table 
below: 

Non-EFPIA 

Academia 

SMEs  Others 

Participants 

917 

213 

58 

Total 

% 

1,188 

1,188 

77.2% 

17.9% 

4.9% 

100% 

Table 14. IMI JU 2009 call for proposals – Stage 1. Typology of participants 

Comparing  to  the  number  and  type  of  participants  in  the  IMI's  first  call  for  proposals,  the 
picture  for  this  call  followed  the  same  pattern.  There  was  a  slight  increase  of  0.9%  in  the 
number  of  participating  SMEs  against  the  other  type  of  legal  entities.  Although  not 
significant,  this  increase  was  in  line  with  one  of  the  main  objectives  of  the  IMI  JU  –  to 
promote the involvement of SMEs in its activities.  

In  this  second  call,  there  were  applicants  from  the  following  FP7  associated  countries: 
Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Israel,  Norway,  Serbia,  Switzerland,  Turkey,  and  also 
applicants from FP7 third countries: Canada, People's Republic of China, Republic of Korea, 
Russian Federation, Senegal, Ukraine and the USA. The figure below provides information on 
the submitted EoIs in the first stage of the call per country: 

19 

The  amount  shown  is  the  indicative  IMI  financial  contribution  as  it  was  published  with  the  call. 
However,  the final  IMI financial  contribution  to  the  second  call  projects  after  negotiation  was €  80.7 
million (see Section 3.3.5). The EFTA contribution of € 1.843 million and a transfer of € 2.097 million 
from running costs to operational costs were used to enable IMI to engage this total contribution to the 
second call projects. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 15. IMI JU 2009 call for proposals – Stage 1. Participation in the submitted EoIs per country 

About 77% of all EoIs (90 in total) were submitted under Pillar II: Improving the Predictivity 
of Efficacy Evaluation. The remaining about ¼ of the EoIs (28 in total) was submitted under 
Pillar III: Knowledge Management. 

Figure 16. IMI JU 2009 call for proposals – Stage 1. Submitted EoIs per pillar 

Similarly to the first call for proposals launched by IMI in 2008, the biggest number of EoIs 
was in Pillar II: Improving the Predictivity of Efficacy Evaluation. 

3.3.3.  Evaluation procedure  

Stage 1 – EoIs  

The evaluation of the EoIs (also referred to as "first peer review") took place between 11 and 
26  February  2010.  It  was  done  in  two  consecutive  steps  –  remotely  and  through  consensus 
panel meetings. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
The  EoIs  were  evaluated  against  the  following  four  criteria:  1)  Scientific  and/or 
technological excellence, 2) Excellence of partnership, 3) Quality and soundness of the work 
plan, including the budget, and 4) Potential ethical issues.  

For each evaluation criterion, a score has been given on a scale from 0 (EoI fails to address 
the criterion) to 5 (EoI addresses all aspects of the criterion). Weighting and thresholds were 
set  for  the  first  two  criteria,  while  the  fourth  criterion  at  this  stage  was  only  assessing  the 
existence of potential ethical issues to be reviewed in the next stage of the call.  

The  table  below  gives  an  overview  on  the  evaluation  criteria,  scoring,  weighting  and 
applicable thresholds in Stage 1 of the call: 

№  Evaluation criterion 

Score  Weight Threshold 

1.  Scientific and/or technological excellence

0 to 5 

2.  Excellence of partnership 

3.  Work plan outline 

4.  Ethical issues 

0 to 5 

0 to 5 

Yes/No

4 

3 

--- 

--- 

15/20 

10/15 

--- 

--- 

Table 15. IMI JU 2009 call for proposals – Stage 1. Scoring, weighting and thresholds 

As a first step, the EoIs were reviewed remotely by a total of 58 independent experts and 
representatives of the topic-generating EFPIA consortia. The latter could consult the EFPIA 
consortium on EoIs submitted in their own call topic. At this point, each expert worked on the 
EoIs  individually.  In  the  end,  scores  and  comments  on  each  evaluation  criterion  were 
included in individual evaluation reports used later in the consensus panel meetings. 

After the individual assessments were completed, the first peer review moved to the next step 
– the consensus panel evaluations. The independent experts, along with the representatives 
of each topic-generating EFPIA consortium were brought together to finalise the first stage of 
the evaluation process. A series of consensus panel meetings were held from 23-26 February 
2010  in  the  IMI  premises  in  Brussels.  The  conclusions  of  these  meetings  were  included  in 
consensus  evaluation  reports  based  on  which  the  IMI  JU  established  a  ranked  list  of  the 
submitted  EoIs  for  each  of  the  nine  call  topics.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  EFPIA 
representatives, while fully participating in the discussions, were not involved in the ranking 
of the submitted EoIs. 

To ensure transparency, the IMI Executive Office invited three independent observers to the 
two  stages  of  the  evaluation  process.  The  role  of  the  observers  was  to  verify  if  the  peer 
reviews have been done according to the IMI Rules for submission, evaluation and selection 
of EoIs and FPPs. Their conclusions were reflected in an independent observers' report made 
publicly available on the IMI's website after the evaluation stages.  

In general, the observers found that the first peer review was conducted in a professional and 
fair manner according to the rules. They also gave some recommendations to IMI on how to 
improve the Stage 1 submission and evaluation process in future calls. 

The final ranking of the EoIs proposed by the evaluators was approved by the IMI Governing 
Board on 16 March 2010. After that, the applicant consortia of the top-ranked EoIs for each of 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
the  nine  call  topics  were  invited  to  discuss  with  the  corresponding  EFPIA  consortium  the 
feasibility of jointly developing Full Project Proposals for Stage 2 of the call.  

Details on the selected EoIs in the first stage of the call can be found in Section 3.3.4.  

Stage 2 – FPPs 

The  second  stage  of  the  call  was  launched  on  23  March  2010.  At  this  stage,  the  applicant 
consortia with the top-ranked EoIs submitted in each of the nine topics of the call were invited 
to join together with the pre-established EFPIA consortia associated with the respective topic 
and to submit Full Project Proposals. The deadline for FPPs submission was 28 June 2010.  

At  this  stage,  the  coordinators  of  the  applicant  consortia  and  the  EFPIA  consortia  held  a 
number  of  meetings  to  foster  interaction  between  the  partners,  as  well  as  to  facilitate  the 
establishment  of  full  project  consortia  and  prepare  their  FPPs.  The  IMI  Executive  Office 
participated  in  each  of  these  meetings  providing  assistance  and  acting  as  a  facilitator  on 
scientific, administrative, financial and legal issues. Similarly to Stage 1, the FPPs had to be 
submitted through the IMI electronic submission tool. 

The evaluation of the FPPs (also referred to as "second peer review") took place between 1 
and  16  July  2010.  As  in  the  first  peer  review,  it  has  been  done  in  two  consecutive  steps  – 
remotely and through consensus panel meetings.  

The  FPPs  were  evaluated  against  the  following  four  criteria:  1)  Scientific  and/or 
technological  excellence,  including  an  appropriate  response  to  any  ethical  issues,  2) 
Excellence  of  the  project  implementation  plan,  3)  Consistency  with  the  call  topic  and  the 
project objectives set in the EoI at Stage 1 of the call, and 4) Potential impact and foreseen 
dissemination of the project results.  

As in Stage 1 of the call, a score has been given on a scale from 0 (FPP fails to address the 
criterion)  to  5  (FPP  addresses  all  aspects  of  the  criterion)  for  each  evaluation  criterion.  In 
contrast to the previous stage, however, the criteria were not weighted. A threshold (3 points 
out of 5) has been set only for the criterion on scientific and/or technological excellence of the 
proposal, including also a response to any ethical issues the project might raise. 

Table 16 gives an overview on the evaluation criteria, scoring and thresholds in Stage 2 of the 
call: 

№  Evaluation criterion 

Score Threshold 

1.  Scientific and/or technological excellence 

0 to 5 

3/5 

2.  Excellence of the project implementation plan

0 to 5 

3.  Consistency with the call topic and the EoI 

4.  Potential impact of project results 

0 to 5 

0 to 5 

--- 

--- 

--- 

Table 16. IMI JU 2009 call for proposals – Stage 2. Scoring and thresholds 

In contrast to the first peer review, the evaluation of the nine top-ranked FPPs was conducted 
by  independent  external  experts  only,  without  participation  of  members  of  the  EFPIA 
consortia. A total of 58 experts participated in the second peer review of the call, including 8 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
ethical  experts.  The  evaluation  of  the  FPPs  was,  where  feasible,  performed  by  the  same 
experts as the evaluation of the EoIs. 

The proposals were assessed first remotely (1-7 July) and then in consensus panel meetings 
held in the IMI premises in Brussels (13-16 July). In addition, an ethical review was carried 
out for each FPP.  

The  results  of  the  second  peer  review  for  each  of  the  nine  FPPs  were  included  in  two 
documents:  valuation  consensus  form  and  ethical  review  report.  After  Stage  2  of  the  call, 
these documents have been communicated to the applicants. 

The  independent  experts  found  out  that  the  FPPs  constructively  evolved  from  the  EoIs 
submitted in Stage 1 of the call, managed to address most of the questions raised during the 
first peer review and met the objectives of the call topics. They agreed, however, that some 
modifications may be required during the negotiation process. 

As in the first stage of the evaluation, the IMI Executive Office invited the three independent 
observers to verify if the second peer reviews have been done according to the set evaluation 
guidelines  and  rules.  Their  conclusions  have  been  reflected  in  a  second  independent 
observers' report. An Action Plan based on the recommendations of the report was drafted by 
the  IMI  JU  with  the  objective  to  implement  the  prescribed  actions  in  its  2010  call  for 
proposals. 

3.3.4.  Evaluation results 

Stage 1 – EoIs  

Out of the 118 eligible EoIs , 51 (43.2%) were favourably evaluated in the first peer review 
of the call, i.e. above the defined thresholds. They were included in ranked lists under each of 
the nine call topics. The remaining 67 EoIs (56.8%) failed at least one threshold.  

Table  17  shows  that  45.6%  (or  41)  of  the  eligible  EoIs  passed  the  thresholds  in  Pillar  II: 
Improving  the  Predictivity  of  Efficacy  Evaluation,  and  35.7%  (or  10)  –  in  Pillar  III: 
Knowledge Management: 

Pillar  

Pillar II: Improving the 
Predictivity of Efficacy 
Evaluation  

Pillar III: Knowledge 
Management 

Topic 
number 

Eligible 
EoIs 

EoIs above 
threshold 

Selected EoIs 
for Stage 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

26 

27 

10 

17 

7 

3 

7 

13 

3 

11 

6 

1 

26.9% 

48.1% 

30.0% 

64.7% 

85.7% 

33.3% 

Sub-total

90 

41 

45.6% 

7 

8 

4 

6 

1 

3 

25.0% 

50.0% 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

1 

1 

14.3% 

7.7% 

33.3% 

9.1% 

16.7% 

100.0% 

14.6% 

100.0% 

33.3% 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
9 

Sub-total

18 

28 

118 

6 

10 

51 

33.3% 

35.7% 

43.2% 

1 

3 

9 

16.7% 

30.0% 

17.6% 

TOTAL 

Table 17. IMI JU 2009 call for proposals – Stage 2. Scoring and success rate of the submitted EoIs 

It  can  be  observed  that  the  overall  success  rate  of  the  EoIs  in  this  call  was  17.6%.  It  was 
higher  than  in  the  previous  IMI's  call,  when  13.4%  of  the  eligible  EoIs  were  selected  to 
continue in Stage 2.  

With regard to the call topics, the success rate under Pillar II was significantly lower than in 
Pillar III – 14.6% against 30%. This is partly due to the fact that the number of the submitted 
EoIs  under  the  second  pillar  was  much  higher,  but  at  the  same  time  its  scope  was  more 
specific. 

Stage 2 – FPPs  

All  9  FPPs  were  eligible  and  passed  the  threshold  applicable  to  evaluation  criterion  1 
"Scientific and/or technological excellence".  

Following a recommendation of the independent experts after the second peer review that the 
FPPs  from  Topic  5  "Understanding  aberrant  adaptive  immunity  mechanisms"  and  Topic  6 
"Translational  research  in  chronic  immune-mediated  disease:  bridging  between  animal 
models  and  humans"  should  be  merged  due  to  their  commonalities  and  complementarities, 
finally 8 FPPs were selected for negotiation.  

In  total,  193  applicants  participated  in  the  full  project  consortia  that  submitted  the  8  FPPs 
proposed for funding. Of them, 22 EFPIA member companies representing one third of the 
total  number  of  successful  applicants  accounted  for  65  participations.  128  were  the  non-
EFPIA participants, of which 36.3% came from academia, 11.9% were SMEs and 18.1% – 
other types of legal entities, such as patient organisations, agencies/regulatory organisations, 
other  industry  associations  or  non-EFPIA  companies  larger  than  SMEs.  This  distribution  is 
shown in the table below: 

EFPIA 

65 

65 

Non-EFPIA 

Academia 

SMEs  Others 

70 

23 

35 

128 

193 

33.7% 

36.3% 

11.9% 

18.1% 

100% 

Participants 

Total 

% 

Table 18. IMI JU 2009 call for proposals – Stage 2. Typology of participants 

In comparison to the final stage of the IMI first call for proposals launched in 2008, there 
was a relative increase in the participation of SMEs against academia and other type of legal 
entities (6.1% in 2008, while 11.9% in 2009). However, the number of SME partners in the 
FPPs proposed for funding in this call remained at the same level as before (24 in 2008, 23 in 
2009).  

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
The  non-EFPIA  participants  in  the  successful  full  project  consortia  originated  from  20 
countries  –  17  EU  Member  States,  Switzerland,  Norway  and  Israel.  The  UK,  as  in  the 
previous call, had the highest participation rate – 31 participants, followed by Germany and 
the  Netherlands,  respectively  with  26  and  16  participants.  Figure  17  illustrates  in  detail  the 
participations per country in the end of that stage of the call: 

Figure 17. IMI JU 2009 call for proposals – Stage 2. 
Participation in the FPPs proposed for funding per country 

The  total  IMI  JU  financial  contribution  requested  by  the  non-EFPIA  participants  in  the 
FPPs  selected  for  funding  amounted  to  €  80,740,072.  The  funding  requested  by  the  SME 
partners was € 15,455,411, which represented 19.1% of the total IMI JU contribution in the 
call.  

3.3.5.  Grant agreements signed 

The grant agreements of the IMI JU 2009 call for proposals were negotiated from September 
until November 2010. There were no changes in the approved list of the FPPs proposed for 
funding compared to the grant agreements signed.  

The eight grant agreements were signed in 2011. Their total budget was € 171,707,565, of 
which  the  EU  contribution  formed  the  biggest  part  –  €  80,740,072.  The  in-kind 
contribution  from  the  EFPIA  members  amounted  to  €  65,872,527,  and  €  25,094,966  were 
added from the participants' own funds.  

The  amount  committed  by  the  European  Commission  for  the  second  call  for  proposals  in 
2009  was  €  78,643,200,  of  which  the  EFTA  contribution  was  €  1,843,200.  In  2010,  IMI 
committed  additionally  €  2,096,872  for  this  call  on  the  carried  over  amount  from  2008  (€ 
16,039,097). 

Table 19 below provides information on the signed grant agreements in the IMI's 2009 call 
for proposals, detailing the financial contribution in the awarded proposals. 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
№ 

GA 
number 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

1. 

115188 

PREDECT 

2. 

115234 

OncoTrack 

New models for preclinical evaluation of 
drug efficacy in common solid tumours 

Methods for systematic next generation 
oncology biomarker development 

IMI JU 
contribution 

In-kind 
contribution from 
EFPIA members 

Additional own 
resources  

Total 
contributions 

8,100,509 

7,066,607 

2,532,789 

17,699,905 

16,050,282 

9,726,557 

4,915,508 

30,692,347 

3. 

115151  QuIC-ConCePT  Quantitative imaging in cancer: connecting 

7,000,000 

8,053,206 

2,062,174 

17,115,380 

4. 

115153 

RAPP-ID 

cellular processes with therapy 

Development of rapid point-of-care test 
platforms for infectious diseases 

6,828,438 

5,848,470 

1,771,853 

14,448,761 

5. 

6. 

7. 

115139 

BTCure 

Be the cure 

16,137,872 

14,172,302 

7,807,923 

38,118,097 

115156 

DDMoRe 

Drug disease model resources 

115191  Open PHACTS  The open pharmacological concepts triple 

9,615,058 

9,988,867 

9,820,120 

4,142,649 

1,729,883 

21,165,061 

2,265,938 

16,397,454 

store 

8. 

115189 

EHR4CR 

Electronic health record systems for clinical 
research 

7,019,046 

7,042,616 

2,008,898 

16,070,560 

TOTAL 

€ 80,740,072 

€ 65,872,527 

€ 25,094,966 

€ 171,707,565 

Table 19. Grant agreements signed in the IMI JU 2009 call for proposals 

EN 

68 

EN 

 
  
3.4. 

Call 3 IMI_Call_2010_3 

3.4.1. 

Summary information 

IMI launched its third call for proposals on 22 October 2010. A two-stage submission and 
evaluation process, as in the previous calls, has been followed. According to the planning, the 
call  process  and  the  negotiations  of  the  projects  selected  for  funding  had  to  be  finalised  in 
2011.  

Any company, university, research organisation, or other entity carrying out activities relevant 
to the objectives of the IMI JU in the EU Member States or countries associated with the FP7 
could participate in the call by submitting an Expression of Interest.  

Based on the scientific priorities outlined in the IMI  Annual Implementation Plan 2010,  the 
third  call  included  seven  topics.  They  were  addressing  the  three  following  strategic  pillars: 
Pillar I Improving the Predictivity of Safety Evaluation, Pillar II: Improving the Predictivity 
of Efficacy Evaluation and Pillar IV: Education and Training. Each topic was formulated and 
associated with a pre-established consortium of pharmaceutical companies – members of the 
EFPIA. 

The topics in the IMI 2010 call are listed in the table below: 

№  Topic 

Pillar I: Improving the Predictivity of Safety Evaluation 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Improving the early prediction of drug induced liver injury in man 

Immunogenicity:  assessing  the  clinical  relevance  and  risk  minimization  of  antibodies 
to biopharmaceuticals 

Immunosafety  of  vaccines  –  new  biomarkers  associated  with  adverse  events  (early 
inflammation, autoimmune diseases and allergy) 

Pillar II: Improving the Predictivity of Efficacy Evaluation 

4. 

Improving the preclinical models and tools for tuberculosis medicines research 

5.  Translational endpoints in autism 

6.  Development of personalized medicine approaches in diabetes 

Pillar IV: Education and Training 

7.  Fostering patient awareness on pharmaceutical innovation 

Table 20. Topics of the IMI JU 2010 call for proposals 

The timeline of the IMI's 2010 call for proposals has been planned as follows:  

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
Figure 18. Indicative timeline of the IMI JU 2010 call for proposals 

The total indicative budget of the call included a maximum EU financial contribution of € 
114  million,  matched  with  an  in-kind  contribution  from  the  research-based  companies, 
members of the EFPIA.  

The amount committed by the European Commission for this call in 2010 was € 98,644,744, 
of which the EFTA contribution was € 2,424,744. Th e foreseen amount after Stage 2 of this 
call is € 111,816,312, which was planned to be committed by IMI in 2011. 

The deadline for submitting Expressions of Interest was 18 January 2011. As before, EoIs had 
to be submitted online via the electronic tool on the IMI's website. The evaluations followed 
and Stage 1 of the call was completed by the end of February. IMI launched Stage 2 of the 
call  in  May  as  planned,  followed  by  evaluation,  selection  and  negotiation  of  the  successful 
projects. The grant agreements signature and the payment of pre-financing were expected to 
be concluded by the first quarter of 2012. 

Taking into consideration this timeline, the Commission shall present the results of the IMI's 
2010 call for proposals in its next year's report on the progress achieved by the JTI JUs. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
4. 

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

4.1. 

About the FCH JU 

The  Fuel  Cells  and  Hydrogen  Joint  Undertaking  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  "FCH  JU")  has 
been  established  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  521/2008  of  30  May  2008  as  an  industry-led 
public-private partnership supporting research, technological development and demonstration 
(RTD)  activities  in  fuel  cell  and  hydrogen  energy  technologies  in  Europe.  The  FCH  JU 
members  are  the  New  Energy  World  Industry  Grouping  (NEW-IG)20,  representing  the  fuel 
cell and hydrogen industries, the N.ERGHY Research Grouping21, representing the research 
community, and the European Union, represented by the European Commission. 

The FCH JU has been set up for a period up to 31 December 2017 with the main objective to 
significantly  accelerate  the  market  introduction  of  fuel  cell  and  hydrogen  technologies, 
realising  their  potential  as  an  instrument  in  achieving  a  carbon-clean  energy  system.  The 
broader  use  of  fuel  cells,  as  an  efficient  power  conversion  technology,  and  hydrogen,  as  an 
environment-friendly energy carrier, can contribute to reduce greenhouse gas emissions22, and 
lower the dependence on hydrocarbons, and to stimulate the economic growth. The aim of the 
FCH JU is to bring these benefits to Europeans through a concentrated effort from all sectors 
pooling together public and private resources. 

In  order  to  achieve  this  aim,  as  well  as  manage  and  implement  its  programme  of  RTD 
activities in an efficient manner, the FCH JU has identified four main application areas (AA) 
outlined in the Multi-Annual Implementation Plan 2008-2013: 

(1) 

(2) 

20 

21 

22 

Transport & Refuelling Infrastructure – dealing with next generation fuel cell hybrid 
vehicles, including cars and buses; 

Hydrogen  Production  and  Storage  –  referring  to  sustainable  hydrogen  production, 
storage and distribution processes, for example production of hydrogen from biomass 
or solar energy; 

The New Energy World Industry Grouping "Fuel Cell and Hydrogen for Sustainability" (NEW-IG) is a 
non-profit association open to industrial companies dealing with fuel cell and hydrogen R&D activities 
in Europe, including the EU Member States, the countries in the European Economic Area and the EU 
associate and candidate countries. By the end of 2010, the Industry Grouping had 56 members. They 
varied from micro to large enterprises and were developing products for application in transportation, 
stationary, hydrogen production, components and portable fuel cell fields. 

The N.ERGHY Research Grouping is a non-profit association representing the research community in 
Europe. The objective of N.ERGHY is to promote, support and accelerate the research and deployment 
process  of  fuel  cell  and  hydrogen  technology  in  Europe  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  research 
community. Currently the organisation has over 60 research institutes and universities as members. 

The European Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan has identified fuel cells and hydrogen among 
the  technologies  needed  for  Europe  to  achieve  the  2020  Energy  and  Climate  Change  goals  –  20% 
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 20% share of renewable energy sources in the energy mix and 
20%  reduction  in  primary  energy  use,  as  well  as  to  achieve  the  long-term  vision  for  2050  towards 
decarbonisation [Communication from the Commission of 22 November 2007, COM (2007) 723 final]. 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(3) 

(4) 

Stationary  Power  Production  &  Combined  Heat  and  Power  –  aiming  to  meet  the 
technical  and  economic  requirements  needed  to  compete  with  the  existing  energy 
conversion technologies; 

Early Markets – focused on the development of fuel cell-based products capable to 
enter the market in the short term and to turn into commercial success stories. 

Cross-cutting  activities  have  been  established  as  a  fifth  area  to  provide  programme  level 
coordination.  These  include  drafting  of  regulations  and  formulation  of  codes  and  standards, 
pre-normative  and  socio-economic  research,  technology  and  life  cycle  assessments,  market 
support (particularly for SMEs), public awareness and education.  

The maximum EU contribution to the FCH JU is € 470 million, covering running costs (€ 20 
million)  and  operational  costs  (€  450  million).  The  EU  contribution  is  paid  from  the 
appropriations  in  the  general  budget  of  the  European  Union  allocated  to  themes  "Energy", 
"Nanosciences,  Nanotechnologies,  Materials  and  New  Production  Technologies", 
"Environment"  and  "Transport"  of  Specific  Programme  "Cooperation"  under  the  FP7.  For 
operational costs, the in-kind contributions from the members of the NEW Industry Grouping 
at  least  match  the  EU  contribution  to  all  type  of  beneficiaries  participating  in  the  FCH  JU 
activities.  

For  coordinating  the  inputs  of  all  the  members  and  managing  its  activities,  the  Joint 
Undertaking's  governance  structure  comprises  two  executive  bodies  –  the  Governing  Board 
and the Executive Director assisted by the Programme Office, and three advisory bodies – the 
Scientific  Committee,  the  States  Representatives  Group  and  the  Stakeholders'  General 
Assembly. 

4.2.  Main activities of the FCH JU in 2010 

The  main  operational  objectives  of  the  FCH  JU  in  2010  focused  on  the  management  of  its 
first and second calls for proposals. An overview of the 2009 call and details on the outcome 
of the negotiation process are provided  in Section 4.3. Section  4.4 gives information on the 
2010 call, providing analysis of the submitted proposals, describing the evaluation procedure 
and the evaluation results.  

As  to  the  administrative  activities  of  the  Joint  Undertaking,  the  focus  in  2010  was  put  on 
completing the legal and financial framework for the autonomy of the JTI JU23. After meeting 
all  "autonomy  criteria",  on  15  November  2010,  the  Joint  Undertaking  has  been  granted 
administrative and operational autonomy from the European Commission. 

Key milestones 

• 

23 

Negotiation, signature of the grant agreements with selected beneficiaries and kick-
off of the projects from the 2009 call for proposals; 

Pursuant to Art. 16 (1) of Council Regulation (EC) 521/2008, the Commission was responsible for the 
establishment and initial operation of the FCH JU until it gained operational capacity to implement its 
own budget. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

Launch  of  the  2010  calls  of  proposals,  evaluation  of  the  eligible  proposals  and 
establishment of a reserve list; 

Adoption of management and internal control systems; 

Configuration of the IT-assisted accounting system ABAC. 

In terms of staffing, 12 new temporary agent positions have been filled in by the end of 2010. 
Thereby, 14 temporary agents had been recruited out of the 18 temporary agents authorised by 
the  Joint  Undertaking's  2010  Staff  Policy  Plan.  In  addition,  following  a  public  procurement 
procedure  in  2010  jointly  with  the  other  JTI  JUs,  FCH  moved  into  its  new  premises  in  the 
White Atrium building in Brussels in January 2011.  

FCH experienced some IT problems during the year, such as delays in the configuration of the 
project  management  tools  and  increased  response  time  of  ABAC  and  the  various  FP7 
applications  used  by  FCH,  which  were  identified  in  the  Annual  Activity  Report  2010  as  a 
critical  risk  for  the  operational  performance  of  the  Joint  Undertaking.  A  number  of  actions 
have been taken to mitigate the risk – a root-cause analysis of the problems, a close follow-up 
of the concluded Service Level Agreements, monitoring and timely reporting of the occurred 
IT issues. 

In preparation of its autonomy, in 2010 the FCH JU completed the establishment of its own 
internal  control  system.  A  set  of  16  Internal  Control  Standards  have  been  adopted  and  an 
action plan on their progressive elaboration has been established.  

It is also worth mentioning that the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission 
continued  to  collaborate  together  with  the  FCH  JU  under  the  Framework  Agreement 
concluded in 2009. 

Governance 

The FCH Governing Board held three meetings in 2010.  

The 5th Governing Board meeting was held on 29 January 2010, when the FCH JU's budget 
for 2010 was adopted and the Terms and Conditions for internal investigations in relation to 
the  prevention  of  fraud,  corruption  and  any  illegal  activity  detrimental  to  the  EU's  interests 
were approved.  

At the 6th Governing Board meeting on 15 June 2010 the then chair of the Joint Undertaking 
was  re-elected  and  a  new  deputy-chair  was  elected.  The  Board  nominated  also  Bert  De 
Colvenaer as an Executive Director who officially took up his duties on 1 September. During 
this  meeting  the  Governing  Board  adopted  a  number  of  important  documents:  the  Annual 
Management Report 2009, the Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) 2010 and the amendment 
of the model FCH JU grant agreement. The FCH JU's Internal Control Standards were also 
formally approved. 

The  Board  formally  requested  the  Commission  to  initiate  a  process  of  amendment  of  the 
relevant articles in the Statutes of the FCH JU24 in order to improve the funding levels in the 

24 

Annexed to the Council Regulation (EC) 521/2008 setting up the FCH JU. 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
                                                 
future  calls  for  proposals.  This  has  been  done  following  the  results  of  the  readiness 
assessment  exercise  performed  in  preparation  of  the  JU's  autonomy.  Among  the  identified 
critical risks was the impact that the requirement for the industry to match the EU financial 
contribution to projects had on the attractiveness of the FCH JU's programme25. To solve the 
problem, the Board suggested keeping the 50/50 co-funding principle intact and recognising 
the shareholder role of the research community.  

In the meantime, the ranked list of proposals selected for funding in the FCH JU's 2009 call 
was adopted in April 2010 and the negotiations have started. By October-December 2010 the 
negotiations of all projects were completed and the Board approved the lists of proposals for 
funding followed by signature of the grant agreements. 

The last for the year 7th Governing Board meeting which took place on 10 November  2010 
was concluded with appointment of the Commission Internal Audit Service (IAS) as the FCH 
JU's Internal Auditor. 

The Scientific Committee met once during the year and the States Representatives Group held 
two  meetings  in  2010.  In  their  advisory  role,  the  members  of  the  Scientific  Committee 
provided  input  on  the  scientific  priorities  for  the  future  Annual  Implementation  Plan  and 
discussed the revision of the R&D agenda set out in the Multi-Annual Implementation Plan. 
The States Representatives Group was consulted on the topics for the 2010 and 2011 call for 
proposals, the possible amendments of the Council Regulation (EC) 521/2008 to improve the 
FCH  JU  funding  limits  and  also  discussed  the  revision  of  the  Multi-Annual  Implementation 
Plan. 

The Stakeholders' General Assembly is an annual event aiming to inform the interested parties 
about  the  activities  of  the  FCH  JU  and  to  receive  feedback  for  the  future  planning  of  the 
programme. It provides a space for stakeholders across sectors from around the world to get 
together and discuss the state of affairs of the fuel cell and hydrogen industry, exchange ideas 
and  make  contacts.  The  3rd  Stakeholders'  General  Assembly  took  place  in  Brussels  on  9-10 
November 2010 and has been attended by more than 350 participants. 

Communication activities 

The  main  objectives  in  2010  concerning  communication  activities  were  to  efficiently 
disseminate the information on the opportunities offered by the calls for proposals and to raise 
political awareness on the technologies' readiness and commercialisation prospects.  

Two  Info  Days  were  organised  to  promote  the  FCH  JU  2010  call  for proposals  to  potential 
participants and other stakeholders – on 17 May in Essen (Germany) and on 8 July 2010 in 
Brussels (Belgium). In addition, the FCH JU presented its programme and activities during 27 
external events and conferences in 7 different EU Member States and one associated country, 
as well as on events in two non-European countries.  

25 

As explained in the Annual Activity Report 2010 of the FCH JU, "a large number of participants in the 
projects  are  research  centres  and  other  non-industry  participants  whose  contribution  to  projects  is 
currently  not  considered  in  the  matching  requirement.  Therefore,  the  industry  contribution  alone  has 
shown not to be sufficient to fulfil the matching requirement while maintaining funding rates that are in 
line with the nominal rates set at a level corresponding to the FP7 funding rates". 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Stakeholders' General Assembly, as mentioned above, was organised in Brussels on 9-10 
November 2010 and represented a major communication event open to all public and private 
stakeholders.  It  gathered  more  than  350  participants  from  all  over  Europe,  with  some  70 
speakers  from  Europe,  Japan,  Korea  and  the  USA  representing  industry,  research 
organisations, governmental and other public bodies, and NGOs.  

Furthermore, the FCH  JU published  three press releases and launched a competitive market 
procedure for a new visual identity, the outcome of which was expected in 2011. Regarding 
its  internet  presence,  the  Joint  Undertaking  developed  a  new  website  (http://www.fch-ju.eu) 
aiming  to  inform  the  interested  parties  about  project  funding  and  ongoing  RTD  projects,  as 
well as to provide general information to the public about the latest developments in fuel cell 
and hydrogen technologies.  

Calls for proposals 

The  FCH  JU  launches  open  and  competitive  calls  for  proposals  annually  on  the  basis  of 
which funding is granted for research, technological development and demonstration projects. 
The topics stem from the FCH JU Annual Implementation Plan and are consistent with the 
five  Application  Areas  described  above  and  the  RTD  priorities  and  key  objectives  for  the 
respective year.  

Two  types  of  funding  schemes  are  used  to  implement  projects  in  the  FCH  JU:  1) 
collaborative  projects,  and  2)  coordination  and  support  actions.  The  schemes  used  in  the 
different  calls  are  announced  in  the  call  fiche.  Collaborative  projects  are  objective-driven 
research  projects  aiming  at  developing  new  knowledge,  technology  or  product.  Participants 
must  form  a  consortium  by  at  least  three  legal  entities  established  in  different  EU  Member 
States or FP7 associated countries, of which at least one should be a member of the Industry 
Grouping or the Research Grouping. Collaborative projects typically last two to five years.  

The funding scheme allows also for two other types of actions to be financed: coordination 
(networking)  actions  coordinating  research  activities  and  policies  and  support  actions 
contributing to the Annual Implementation Plan and the preparation of future EU research and 
technological  development  policy.  Coordination  actions  are  normally  completed  in  two  to 
four years, while support actions have a shorter duration. 

FCH  JU's  projects  are  selected  through  calls  for  proposals  following  a  single  stage 
submission  and  evaluation  process.  Applications  must  be  submitted  using  a  special  web-
based  service  (since  2010,  this  is  the  FP7  tool  EPSS  –  Electronic  Proposal  Submission 
Service)  before  a  strictly-enforced  deadline.  The  notifications  for  calls  for  proposals  are 
published  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union  and  broadly  announced  through 
various  communication  channels,  including  on  the  FCH  JU  website,  indicating  call  topics, 
indicative budget, funding scheme, deadlines for submission and links to the submission tool 
EPSS.  The  whole  call  process  is  managed  by  the  FCH  according  to  the  principles  of 
excellence,  transparency,  fairness  and  impartiality,  confidentiality,  efficiency,  speed  and 
ethical  and  security  considerations  and  following  the  FCH  JU  Rules  for  submission  of 
proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures.  

As a next step, the FCH JU performs an eligibility check to see whether the applicants meet 
the announced eligibility criteria. Then FCH appoints independent experts to assist with the 
evaluation  of  proposals  and  identify  those  of  best  quality  for  possible  funding.  All  eligible 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
proposals are evaluated with respect to the evaluation criteria and the associated weight and 
thresholds  set  for  the  call.  Evaluations  are  done  in  three  steps:  remotely,  through  on-site 
consensus meetings and panel reviews. During the remote evaluation, proposals are assessed 
individually  by  a  minimum  of  three  experts  and  the  results  are  included  in  an  individual 
evaluation  report.  Once  the  experts  complete  their  individual  assessments,  the  evaluation 
proceeds to a consensus assessment, the objective of which is to exchange common views on 
the  evaluated  proposals.  The  results  of  the  consensus  meetings  are  included  in  consensus 
evaluation reports. The final step in the evaluation process is the panel reviews. The outcome 
of those reviews is the evaluation summary report including a list of ranked proposals above 
thresholds, a list of proposals failing one or more thresholds and a list of ineligible proposals, 
if any. The presence of independent observers during the different evaluation stages verifies 
and guarantees that the above-mentioned rules and principles are followed.  

After completing the evaluation and establishing ranked lists with proposals for funding, the 
Joint Undertaking enters into a negotiation with the coordinators of the proposals which have 
successfully passed the evaluation stage and until there is a budget available. If negotiations 
are successfully concluded, the project is selected and a grant agreement providing for a FCH 
JU financial contribution is signed.  

Figure 19. FCH JU calls for proposals. Submission and evaluation process 

The Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Annual Report on the progress 
achieved  by  the  JTI  JUs  in  2009  provided  detailed  information  on  the  FCH  JU's  first  and 
second calls for proposals launched in 2008 and 2009. However, since the negotiations with 
the selected participants and the grant agreements in the second call were signed in 2010, the 
results of this call will be briefly presented in the present document. 

The  document  will  also describe  the  FCH  JU  third  call  published  in  June  2010,  presenting 
the  call  topics,  timeline  and  budget,  analysing  the  proposals  submitted  in  the  call  and  the 
evaluation results. Since the ranked list of proposals selected for funding had to be approved 
by the Joint Undertaking's Governing Board in 2011, the definitive list of successful proposals 
and  information  on  the  signed  grant  agreements  will  be  presented  in  the  next  year's 
Commission's report.  

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
4.3. 

Call 2 FCH-JU-2009-1 

4.3.1. 

Summary information 

The  FCH  JU  second  call  for  proposals  was  published  on  2  July  2009  with  a  deadline  for 
submission 15 October 2009.  

The  call  was  open  to  legal  entities  established  in  the  EU  Member  States  or  FP7  associated 
countries, as well as for international organisations. Legal entities from third countries could 
also participate, but they were only eligible for FCH JU funding provided that the Governing 
Board considered their participation to be of a particular benefit to the project. In general, the 
rules for participation and the  eligibility criteria were similar to those in FP7 with the main 
difference that in the proposals funded through FCH calls at least one legal entity should be a 
member of the FCH JU Industry Grouping or the Research Grouping. 

The 29 topics of the call covered all five FCH Application Areas, including 22 collaborative 
projects  and  7  projects  for  coordination  and  support  actions.  The  total  indicative 
contribution from the FCH JU was set to € 73 million (including the EFTA contribution of 
€  1.7  million),  which  had  to  be  at  least  matched  by  in-kind  contributions  from  the  industry 
participants  in  the  projects.  The  topics  and  their  corresponding  indicative  budget  were 
exhaustively presented in the previous year's Commission's report. 

The timeline of the call is shown on Figure 20 below: 

Figure 20. Timeline of the FCH JU 2009 call for proposals 

4.3.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted 

The  submission  of  proposals  was  done  in  a  single  stage.  A  total  of  50  proposals  were 
submitted in this call, of which 49 were eligible. They accounted for 400 participants from 
25 countries, including 103 SMEs (25.8%). Detailed statistics  on  the types of participants, 
number of applicant SMEs and participation per country at this phase of the call can be found 
in the Commission's report on the JTI JUs' activities in 2009. 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
4.3.3.  Evaluation procedure 

The evaluation of the submitted proposals was carried out from 3 to 20 November 2009 by 31 
independent  experts  in  line  with  the  FCH  JU  Rules  for  submission  of  proposals,  and  the 
related evaluation, selection and award procedures.  

The evaluation criteria for collaborative projects and support actions were similar to those 
in FP7: 1) Scientific and/or technological excellence relevant to the topics addressed by  the 
call,  2)  Quality  and  efficiency  of  the  implementation  and  the  management,  and  3)  Potential 
impact through the development, dissemination and use of project results.  

Each criterion was scored out of 5 (0 if the proposal fails to address the criterion and 5 if it 
addresses  all  aspects  of  the  criterion);  no  weightings  were  applied.  Individual  and  overall 
thresholds were applied to the scores. The threshold for individual criteria was 3/5, while the 
overall threshold, applying to the sum of the three individual scores, was 10/15. 

In  addition,  a  chairperson  oversaw  the  consensus  phase  and  one  independent  observer  was 
invited  to  monitor  that  the  evaluation  procedure  was  carried  out  in  a  fair,  impartial  and 
confidential  manner.  The  individual  remote  evaluations  took  place  from  3  to  13  November 
2009, followed by consensus meetings on 16-18 November and a final panel meeting on 19-
20 November 2009.  

4.3.4.  Evaluation results 

Out of the 49 eligible proposals, 31 were assessed above thresholds. They accounted for 395 
participations, of which 88 were the SMEs (22%). Regarding the typology of participants, 
112  (28.4%)  were  representatives  of  the  research  community  and  73  (18.5%)  of  the 
participants came from academia.  

In  the  light  of  the  available  budget,  on  16  April  2010  the  Governing  Board  of  the  FCH  JU 
approved a list of 26 proposals for funding with additional 4 on the reserve list, ranked in 
priority order according to the evaluation results. This underwent a slight change and finally, 
it was decided that 28 proposals should be funded. 

A total of 250 participants from were involved in the final 28 proposals to be funded. The 
table  below  gives  a  comparative  overview  on  the  number  of  participants  and  requested 
funding per AA of the eligible proposals and those proposed for funding: 

Application Area 

Transport & 
Refuelling 
Infrastructure 

Hydrogen 
Production 
and 
Storage 

Stationary 
Power 
Production 
& 
Combined 
Heat and 
Power 

Early 
Markets 

Cross-
cutting 
activities 

TOTAL

Number of 
proposals 

Eligible 

To be 
funded 

Success 
rate 

7 

4 

7 

2 

20 

13 

7 

4 

8 

5 

49 

28 

57.1% 

28.6% 

65% 

57.1% 

62.5% 

57.1% 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
Application Area 

Transport & 
Refuelling 
Infrastructure 

Hydrogen 
Production 
and 
Storage 

Stationary 
Power 
Production 
& 
Combined 
Heat and 
Power 

Early 
Markets 

Cross-
cutting 
activities 

TOTAL

Eligible 

To be 
funded 

Success 
rate 

Eligible 

To be 
funded 

Eligible 

To be 
funded 

Number of 
participants 

Total costs 
(M€) 

FCH JU 
requested 
contribution 
(M€) 

83 

59 

53 

23 

146 

92 

66 

46 

47 

30 

395 

250 

71.1% 

43.4% 

63% 

69.7% 

63.8% 

63.3% 

96.2 

81.4 

43.9 

34.2 

20.9 

7.4 

13.5 

4.8 

78.4 

54.1 

45.9 

30.1 

38.3 

25.6 

21.3 

14.3 

5.2 

2.5 

4.9 

2.4 

239 

170.9 

129.6 

85.7 

Table 21. FCH JU 2009 call for proposals. Number of participants and requested funding per AA 

The representatives of the research community kept their participation rate in the proposals 
proposed for funding of 28.4% (71 participations), while the number of higher or secondary 
education  establishments  slightly  decreased  to  14%  (35  participants)  against  the  private 
companies and public bodies. The overall success rate in the proposals for funding was 63%, 
of  which  62%  in  collaborative  projects  and  70%  in  coordination  and  support  actions.  The 
requested EU contribution was € 85.74 million. 

The  participants  in  the  successful  projects  originated  from  20  countries  –  14  EU  Member 
States, Switzerland, Norway, Croatia, Turkey, the Russian Federation and Canada. Germany 
had the highest participation rate – 49 participants, followed by Italy and France, respectively 
with 39 and 32 participants. Figure 21 illustrates in detail the participations per country in the 
end of that stage of the call: 

Figure 21. FCH JU 2009 call for proposals. Participations in the successful proposals per country 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
4.3.5.  Grant agreements signed 

The  negotiation  phase  started  on  19  April  and  was  concluded  by  the  end  of  2010.  The 
negotiation  process  took  longer  than  expected  due  primarily  to  the  fact  that  the  IT  tools 
(mainly NEF26) were not adapted to the FCH JU rules until end of September 2010. The first 
payments  to  beneficiaries  were  made  to  all  project  consortia  with  the  exception  of  one27 
before the year end.  

Table 22 below provides details on the projects for which grant agreements were signed with 
information  about  the  EU  contribution  and  the  in-kind  contribution  from  industry  and 
research communities. 

26 
27 

EN 

IT tool used in the negotiation process. 

At  the  request  of  the  project  coordinator,  for  accounting  reasons  and  due  to  the  late  start  date  of  the 
project, the payment was delayed to January 2011.  

80 

   EN 

 
                                                 
№ 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

5. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

FCH JU 
contribution 

In-kind 
contribution 
from industry* 

In-kind 
contribution 
from research* 

Total 
contributions 

CHIC 

Clean Hydrogen in European Cities 

25,878,334 

55,633,502 

HyGuide 

HyGuide 

HyQ 

Hydrogen fuel Quality requirements for transportation 
and other energy applications 

PEMICAN 

PEM with Innovative low cost Core for Automotive 
applicatioN 

ADEL 

Advanced Electrolyser for Hydrogen Production with 
Renewable Energy Sources 

366,318 

123,932 

1,385,219 

1,045,189 

412,455 

25,848 

919,432 

81,924,291 

516,098 

3,349,840 

1,861,352 

866,404 

1,207,463 

3,935,219 

2,043,518 

761,254 

1,164,328 

3,969,100 

SSH2S 

Fuel Cell Coupled Solid State Hydrogen Storage Tank 

1,613,878 

Premium Act 

Predictive Modelling for Innovative Unit Management 
and Accelerated Testing Procedures of PEFC 

2,513,251 

211,886 

813,936 

1,615,225 

1,838,233 

3,440,989 

5,165,420 

Maestro 

HyComp 

MembrAnEs for STationary application with RObust 
mechanical properties 

Enhanced Design Requirements and Testing 
Procedures for Composite Cylinders intended for the 
Safe Storage of Hydrogen 

1,040,049 

842,939 

381,776 

2,264,764 

1,380,728 

1,291,900 

878,676 

3,551,304 

10. 

Ramses 

Robust Advanced Materials for metal Supported SOFC 

2,140,334 

11.  Hyprofessionals  Development of educational programmes and training 

373,537 

972,726 

29,971 

1,583,284 

4,696,344 

7,586 

411,094 

12. 

STAYERS 

initiatives related to hydrogen technologies and fuel 
cells in Europe. 

STAYERS 
Stationary PEM fuel cells with lifetimes beyond five 
years 

1,938,497 

1,778,502 

464,463 

4,181,462 

13. 

FC-EuroGrid 

Evaluating the Performance of Fuel Cells in European 

588,982 

60,070 

185,603 

834,655 

EN 

81 

EN 

 
  
№ 

14. 

15. 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

Energy Supply Grids 

FCH JU 
contribution 

In-kind 
contribution 
from industry* 

In-kind 
contribution 
from research* 

Total 
contributions 

Asterix3 

ASsessment of SOFC CHP Systems build on the 
TEchnology of htceRamIX 3 

1,361,894 

1,499,042 

235,955 

3,096,891 

D-CODE 

DC/DC COnverter-based Diagnostics for PEM systems 

1,173,818 

16.  SCOTAS-SOFC  Sulphur, Carbon, and re-Oxidation Tolerant Anodes 

1,701,770 

and Anode Supports for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells 

568,921 

772,555 

473,028 

1,894,254 

2,215,767 

4,368,579 

17. 

NH34PWR 

Ammonia based, fuel cell power for off-grid cell phone 
towers 

3,054,515 

4,954,568 

195,245 

8,204,328 

18. 

19. 

20. 

LOTUS 

Low Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells for micro-
CHP applications 

1,632,601 

985,634 

206,451 

2,824,686 

CATION 

Cathode Subsystem Development and Optimisation 

2,625,833 

4,021,607 

SOFC-Life 

Solid Oxide Fuel Cells – Integrating Degradation 
Effects into Lifetime Prediction Models 

2,418,620 

789,830 

547,240 

2,441,404 

7,194,680 

5,649,854 

21. 

DESIGN 

DEGRADATION SIGNATURES IDENTIFICATION 
FOR STACK OPERATION DIAGNOSTICS 

22. 

H2FC-LCA 

Development of Guidance Manual for LCA application 
to Fuel cells and Hydrogen technologies 

23. 

TrainHy-Prof 

Building Training Programmes for Young 
Professionals in the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Field 

24. 

FITUP 

Fuel cell field test demonstration of economic and 
environmental viability for portable generators, backup 
and UPS power system applications 

1,745,752 

325,632 

1,194,794 

3,266,178 

311,957 

0 

74,905 

386,862 

269,105 

9,776 

66,841 

345,722 

2,475,978 

1,761,001 

766,478 

5,003,457 

25. 

SHEL 

Sustainable Hydrogen Evaluation in Logistics 

2,443,095 

792,994 

26.  HyLIFT-DEMO  European demonstration of hydrogen powered fuel cell 

2,881,245 

3,416,038 

1,290,588 

464,815 

4,526,677 

6,762,098 

EN 

82 

EN 

 
  
№ 

27. 

28. 

Project 
acronym 

forklifts 

Project title 

FCH JU 
contribution 

In-kind 
contribution 
from industry* 

In-kind 
contribution 
from research* 

Total 
contributions 

Moby Post 

Mobility with Hydrogen for Postal Delivery 

4,262,057 

2,640,159 

HyFacts 

Identification, Preparation and Dissemination of 
Hydrogen Safety Facts to Regulators and Public Safety 
Officials 

1,044,406 

272,463 

884,405 

83,759 

7,786,621 

1,400,628 

TOTAL 

* Indicative budget figures. 

€ 72,526,643 

€ 87,242,431 

€ 21,504,534 

€ 181,273,608 

Table 22. Grant agreements signed in the IMI JU 2009 call for proposals 

EN 

83 

EN 

 
  
4.4. 

Call 3 FCH-JU-2010-1 

4.4.1. 

Summary information 

The  FCH  JU  third  call  for  proposals  was  published  on  18  June  2010  with  a  deadline  for 
submission 13 October 2010. The rules for participation and eligibility criteria were similar to 
those of the call launched in 2009. See Section 4.3.1 above.  

The call comprised of 25 topics based on the FCH RTD priorities in 2010 and covering all 
five  Application  Areas  included  in  the  FCH  Annual  Implementation  Plan  2010.  The 
estimated  FCH  JU  financial  contribution  to  the  call  was  €  91.4  million  (including  the 
EFTA  contribution  of  €  2.3  million),  which  had  to  be  at  least  matched  by  in-kind 
contributions from the industry participants in the projects.  

Table 23 provides a list of all the topics open in this call, as well as the indicative FCH JU 
funding per AA: 

Application Area 

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

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.1.1 Large-scale demonstration of road vehicles and refuelling 
infrastructure III 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.1.2 Next generation European MEAs for transportation applications 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.1.3 Investigation of degradation phenomena 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.1.4 Bipolar Plates  

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.1.5 Auxiliary Power Units for Transportation Applications 

Indicative 
FCH JU 
funding28 
(M€) 

31.6 

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

11.0 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.2.1 Efficient alkaline electrolysers 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.2.2 Development of fuel processing catalyst, modules and systems 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.2.3 Development of gas purification technologies 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.2.4 Low temperature H2 production processes 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.2.5  Preparation  of  demonstration  of  efficient  large-scale  hydrogen 
liquefaction 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.2.6 Feasibility of >400bar CGH2 distribution 

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

33.0 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.3.1 Materials development for cells, stacks and balance of plant (BoP) 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.3.2 Next generation cell and stack designs 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.3.3 Component improvement for stationary power applications 

28 

The  funding  includes  the  FCH  JU's  own  budget  only.  The  amount  corresponding  to  European  Free 
Trade Area (EFTA) contribution was used to reinforce the different sub-budgets. 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Application Area 

Indicative 
FCH JU 
funding28 
(M€) 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.3.4 Proof-of-concept and validation of integrated fuel cell systems 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.3.5 Field demonstration of stationary fuel cell systems 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.3.6  Pre-normative  research  on  power  grid 
management of fuel cells for residential CHP, commercial and industrial applications 

integration  and 

Area SP1-JTI-FCH.4 "Early Markets" 

11.5 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.4.1  Demonstration  of  fuel  cell-powered  materials  handling  vehicles 
including infrastructure II  

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.4.2  Demonstration  of  industrial  application  readiness  of  fuel  cell 
generators for power supply to off-grid stations, including the hydrogen supply solution 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.4.3 Fuel supply concepts for portable and micro fuel cells  

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.4.4  Components  with  advanced  durability  for  Direct  Methanol  Fuel 
Cells 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.4.5  Research and development on new  portable  and micro  Fuel Cell 
solutions 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.4.6  Pre-normative  research  on  the  indoor  use  of  hydrogen  and  fuel 
cells  

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

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.5.1  Development  of  a  Framework  for  Technology  Monitoring  and 
Assessments (TMA) 

SP1-JTI-FCH.2010.5.2 Study of advanced hydrogen economy financing options 

TOTAL (M€) 

2.0 

89.1 

Table 23. Topics of the FCH JU 2010 call for proposals and indicative EU funding 

The timeline of the FCH JU's 2010 call for proposals is shown on Figure 22 below: 

Figure 22. Timeline of the FCH JU 2010 call for proposals 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.4.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted 

The  submission  of  proposals  was  done  in  a  single  stage.  A  total  of  71  proposals  were 
submitted by the deadline,  of  which 69 were eligible. They accounted  for 559 participants 
from 32 countries, including 140 SMEs (25%). Regarding the typology of participants, 36% 
were  representatives  of  the  research  community  and  8%  of  the  participants  came  from 
academia.  

Figure 23. FCH JU 2010 call for proposals. Typology of applicants in submitted proposals 

In this third call, Germany participated with the biggest number of partners – 88, followed by 
Italy (70), UK (59) and France (57). There were applicants from the following FP7 associated 
countries:  Croatia,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Israel,  Serbia,  Switzerland,  Turkey,  and  also 
applicants  from  FP7  third  countries:  the  Russian  Federation,  Japan,  People's  Republic  of 
China and the USA. The figure below gives an overview on the participations per country: 

59

57

46

33
33

27

70

88

20

17

14
14

10
10
10
10

7
7

DE
IT
UK
FR
ES
BE
NL
SE
DK
EL
CH
AT
FI
PT
PL
NO
SI
IL
BG
TR
RU
RS
RO
EE
IE
US
KR
JP
HR
CZ
CN
BY

3
3
3
3
3
3

2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Figure 23. FCH JU 2010 call for proposals. Participation in the submitted proposals per country 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
 
 
The requested funding in all project proposals submitted by the deadline before evaluations 
amounted  to  €  230.6  million,  24%  of  which  requested  by  SME  partners.  The  requested 
funding per participating country can be found in the table below: 

Table 24. IMI JU 2010 call for proposals. Requested funding per country 

4.4.3.  Evaluation procedure  

As in the previous call, the submission of proposals was done in a single stage. The evaluation 
was  carried  out  by  32  independent  experts  and  a  chairperson  who  oversaw  the  whole 
consensus  phase.  In  addition,  two  independent  observers  monitored  that  the  evaluation 
procedure was carried out in a fair, impartial and confidential manner. The individual remote 
evaluations took place from 1 to 13 November 2010 and the consensus meetings – from 16 
to 18 November 2010.  

4.4.4.  Evaluation results 

Out  of  the  69  eligible  proposals,  43  were  assessed  above  thresholds,  requesting  FCH  JU 
contribution of € 147.76 million.  

Table  25  below  presents  the  overall  picture  of  the  evaluation  with  a  breakdown  of  the 
proposals  submitted  in  each  Application  Area,  indicating  the  number  of  those  which  were 
above and below thresholds, as well as the requested FCH JU contribution: 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
 
Table 25. FCH JU 2010 call for proposals. Evaluation results by AA 

4.4.5.  Grant agreements signed 

No agreements were signed in 2010. In light of the available budget a list of 27 proposals (25 
for collaborative projects and 2 for coordination and support actions) with additional 16 
on  the  reserve  list,  ranked  in  priority  order  according  to  the  evaluation  results,  was 
established  by  the  end  of  2010.  The  lists  had  to  be  submitted  for  approval  of  the  FCH  JU 
Governing  Board  at  their  first  meeting  in  2011.  It  was  foreseen  that  the  grant  agreement 
negotiations for the short-listed proposals remain open by February-March 2011. 

The  Commission  shall  therefore  present  the  definite  list  of  grant  agreements  signed  in  the 
FCH JU third call for proposals in its next year's report. 

Data on the provisional ranked list is provided in Table 26 below. 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

FCH 
JU 
rank 

Final 
score 

Coordinator 

Proposal 

Organisation 

Natio
nality 

Number 

Funding 
scheme 

Duration 
(months) 

Acronym 

Title 

14 

14 

14 

DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUER 
LUFT – UND RAUMFAHRT EV 

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS 
INTERNATIONAL B.V. 

NEDSTACK FUEL CELL 
TECHNOLOGY BV 

DE 

278138 

CP 

NL 

278177 

CP 

NL 

278548 

CP 

36 

24 

36 

NEMESIS2+ 

New Method for Superior Integrated 
Hydrogen Generation System 2+ 

IDEALHY 

Integrated Design for Efficient 
Advanced Liquefaction of Hydrogen 

DEMCOPEM  Demonstration of a combined heat 

14 

DIVERSEENERGY Ltd  

UK 

279190 

SA 

24 

TOWERPOWE
R 

13.5  AVL LIST GMBH 

AT 

278899 

CP 

13.5  Rolls-Royce Fuel Cell Systems Ltd 

UK 

278195 

CP 

36 

36 

DESTA 

C3SOFC 

7 

13.5  AFC Energy plc 

UK 

278674 

CP 

36 

LASER-CELL 

and power PEM fuel cell unit 
integrated into a chlor-alkali plant 

Demonstration of FC-Based 
integrated generator systems to 
power off-grid cell phone towers, 
using ammonia fuel 

Demonstration of 1st European 
SOFC Truck APU 

Cost Competitive Component 
integration for StatiOnary Fuel Cell 
power 

Innovative cell and stack design for 
stationary industrial applications 
using novel laser processing 
techniques 

8 

13.5  FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM 

DE 

278525 

CP 

30 

MMLRC=SOFC  Working towards Mass 

JUELICH GMBH 

Manufactured, Low Cost and Robust 
SOFC stacks 

9 

13 

VAN HOOL N.V. 

BE 

278192 

CP 

36 

High V.LO-City  Cities speeding up the integration of 

hydrogen buses in public fleets 

EN 

89 

EN 

 
  
FCH 
JU 
rank 

Final 
score 

10 

13 

Coordinator 

Proposal 

Organisation 

Natio
nality 

Number 

Funding 
scheme 

Duration 
(months) 

Acronym 

Title 

FUNDACION PARA EL 
DESARROLLO DE LAS 
NUEVAS TECNOLOGIAS DEL 
HIDROGENO EN ARAGON 

ES 

278824 

CP 

36 

ELYGRID 

11 

13 

HyGear Fuel Cell Systems B.V. 

NL 

278629 

CP 

36 

SUAV 

Improvements to Integrate High 
Pressure Alkaline Electrolysers for 
Electricity/H2 production from 
Renewable Energies to Balance the 
Grid. 

Microtubular Solid Oxide Fuel Cell 
Power System developement and 
integration into a Mini-UAV 

12 

12.5  VOLVO TECHNOLOGY AB 

SE 

277844 

CP 

13 

12.5  AGENZIA NAZIONALE PER LE 

IT 

279075 

CP 

NUOVE 
TECNOLOGIE,L'ENERGIA E LO 
SVILUPPO ECONOMICO 
SOSTENIBILE 

36 

36 

FCGEN 

Fuel Cell Based On-board Power 
Generation 

CoMETHy 

Compact Multifuel-Energy To 
Hydrogen converter 

14 

12.5  FUNDACION INASMET 

ES 

277916 

CP 

36 

METPROCELL 

15 

12.5  E.ON New Build & Technology 

UK 

278804 

CP 

36 

SOFT-PACT 

Limited 

Innovative fabrication routes and 
materials for METal and anode 
supported PROton conducting fuel 
CELLs 

Solid Oxide Fuel Cell micro-CHP 
Field Trials 

16 

12.5  ERICSSON 

IT 

278921 

CP 

36 

FCpoweredRBS  Demonstration Project for Power 

TELECOMUNICAZIONI 

Supply to Telecom Stations through 
FC technology 

EN 

90 

EN 

 
  
FCH 
JU 
rank 

Final 
score 

Coordinator 

Proposal 

Organisation 

Natio
nality 

Number 

Funding 
scheme 

Duration 
(months) 

Acronym 

Title 

17 

12 

AIR PRODUCTS PLC 

UK 

278727 

CP 

18 

12 

FOUNDATION FOR RESEARCH 
AND TECHNOLOGY HELLAS 

EL 

278538 

CP 

40 

24 

HyTEC 

Hydrogen Transport in European 
Cities 

Hy2Seps_2 

19 

12 

DEUTSCHES ZENTRUM FUER 
LUFT - UND RAUMFAHRT EV 

DE 

278732 

CP 

36 

RESelyser 

20 

12 

TOPSOE FUEL CELL A/S 

DK 

278257 

CP 

36 

METSAPP 

Hybrid Membrane – Pressure Swing 
Adsorption (PSA) Hydrogen 
Purification Systems 

Hydrogen from RES: pressurised 
alkaline electrolyser with high 
efficiency and wide operating range 

Metal supported SOFC technology 
for stationary and mobile 
applications 

21 

12 

FUNDACION INASMET 

ES 

278997 

CP 

22 

12 

CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE 
DELLE RICERCHE 

IT 

278054 

CP 

23 

12 

Claassen Industrie Management 
Trading GmbH 

AT 

278862 

SA 

24 

11.5  POLITECNICO DI TORINO 

IT 

278798 

CP 

25 

11.5  L'AIR LIQUIDE S.A A 

FR 

278534 

CP 

DIRECTOIRE ET CONSEIL DE 
SURVEILLANCE 

36 

36 

24 

36 

36 

ReforCELL 

Advanced Multi-Fuel Reformer for 
Fuel Cell CHP Systems 

DURAMET 

Temonas 

SOFCOM 

HyIndoor 

Improved Durability and Cost-
effective Components for New 
Generation Solid Polymer 
Electrolyte Direct Methanol Fuel 
Cells 

TEchnology MONitoring and 
ASsessment 

SOFC CCHP with poly-fuel: 
operation and maintenance 

Pre-normative research on safe 
indoor use of fuel cells and 
hydrogen systems 

EN 

91 

EN 

 
  
FCH 
JU 
rank 

Final 
score 

26 

11 

Coordinator 

Proposal 

Organisation 

Natio
nality 

Number 

Funding 
scheme 

Duration 
(months) 

Acronym 

Title 

STICHTING DIENST 
LANDBOUWKUNDIG 
ONDERZOEK 

NL 

278855 

CP 

36 

HyTime 

27 

11 

L'AIR LIQUIDE S.A A 
DIRECTOIRE ET CONSEIL DE 
SURVEILLANCE 

FR 

278382 

CP 

36 

FCLIFT 

Low temperature hydrogen 
production from second generation 
biomass 

FCLIFT: demonstration of 
substitution of battery electric 
forklifts by hydrogen fuel cell 
forklifts in a logistics warehouse 

Table 26. FCH JU 2010 call for proposals. Ranked list of proposals selected for funding 

EN 

92 

EN 

 
  
5. 

PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY THE ARTEMIS JU 

5.1. 

About the ARTEMIS JU 

Growing  out  of  the  ARTEMIS  European  Technology  Platform  (ETP),  the  ARTEMIS  Joint 
Undertaking  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  "ARTEMIS  JU")  was  established  by  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  74/2008  of  20  December  2007  as  a  public-private  partnership  between  the 
European  Commission,  the  participating  Member  and  Associated  States  (by  now  22 
countries)29,  and  ARTEMIS-IA30,  a  non-profit  industrial  association  of  R&D  actors  in  the 
field of embedded computer systems.  

The  ARTEMIS  JU  has  been  set  up  for  a  period  up  to  31  December  2017  with  the  main 
objective to tackle the research and structural challenges in embedded systems faced by the 
industrial  sector.  The  goal  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  maximum  EU  contribution  to  the  ARTEMIS  Joint  Undertaking  is  set  to  €  420  million 
paid  from  the  appropriations  in  the  general  budget  of  the  European  Union  allocated  to  the 
theme  "Information  and  Communication  Technologies"  of 
the  Specific  Programme 
"Cooperation" under the FP7. The research activities of the entity are supported also through 
financial contributions from the ARTEMIS Member States amounting to at least 1.8 times the 
EU  contribution  (€  756  million)  and  through  in-kind  contributions  by  research  and 
development organisations participating in projects, which at least match the contribution of 
the public authorities. 

The  ARTEMIS  Joint  Undertaking  is  managed  by  an  Executive  Director.  Its  governance 
structure  comprises  a  Governing  Board,  a  Public  Authorities  Board  (PAB)  and  an  Industry 
and Research Committee (IRC). 

5.2.  Main activities of the ARTEMIS JU in 2010 

After  its  establishment,  ARTEMIS  gradually  developed  operational  capacity,  and  on  26 
October  2009  it  has  been  granted  administrative  and  operational  autonomy  from  the 
Commission.  Thus,  2010  was  the  first  full  year  of  independent  functioning  of  the  Joint 
Undertaking. 

Key milestones 

•  Launch of the ARTEMIS third call for proposals; 

29 

30 

Austria,  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Spain,  Finland,  France, 
Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Netherlands,  Norway,  Portugal,  Romania,  Sweden,  Slovenia 
and the United Kingdom. 

The  ARTEMIS  Industrial  Association  (ARTEMIS-IA)  was  established  in  January  2007  in  the 
Netherlands  by  five  companies:  Philips,  ST  Microelectronics,  Thales,  Nokia  and  DaimlerChrysler.  It 
represents  the  interests  of  the  industry  and  the  research  community  within  the  ARTEMIS  Joint 
Undertaking. 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Grant agreements signature and kick-off of the selected proposals in the 2009 call;  

•  Monitoring and review of the ongoing 2008 calls for proposals; 

•  Adoption of an Internal Control Framework; 

•  Decision to delegate the Internal Audit function to the European Commission. 

In  2010,  ARTEMIS  JU  staff  increased  slightly  –  by  two  administrative  assistants  and  the 
Undertaking ended up the year with 11 employees. Together with the other JTI JUs, the JU 
moved  officially  into  its  new  premises  in  the  White  Atrium  building  in  Brussels  in  January 
2011.  

Governance 

The  running  of  the  Governing  Board  and  the  PAB  run  smoothly  in  2010.  The  Governing 
Board held 3 meetings in 2010, while the PAB met 5 times. The IRC organised one official 
meeting. 

The  main  decisions  taken  by  the  Governing  Board  during  the  year  were  related  to  the 
following topics: 

•  Internal Audit Service Charter and Ex-post Audit Strategy; 

•  Annual Implementation Plan and Budget Plan 2011; 

•  Multi-Annual Strategic Plan and Research Agenda, 2011 edition; 

•  Internal Control Framework and Internal Control Standards; 

•  Annual Accounts and Annual Activity Report for the year 2009; 

•  Management probationary report of the Executive Director; 

•  Multi-Annual Staff Policy Plan 2011-2013; 

•  Amendment to the model ARTEMIS JU grant agreement; 

•  Adoption of the JU's Annual Implementation Plan 2010 and Annual Budget Plan 2010. 

Communication activities 

One of the significant communication activities throughout the year was the participation of 
ARTEMIS  at  the  ICT4EE  event  on  23-24  February  2010  in  Brussels.  Energy  Efficiency  is 
one  of  the  key  applications  of  embedded  systems  so  ARTEMIS  JU  and  ARTEMISIA 
organised a presence at this important conference and exhibition. This second edition of the 
high-level event on ICT for Energy Efficiency was organised by the European Commission's 
DG  INFSO,  in  cooperation  with  the  Spanish  Presidency.  It  gathered  policy  makers  and 
experts on the ICT for Energy Efficiency field through conferences, a Projects' exhibition and 
the "Best ICT4EE Project" Award Ceremony. 

On 9-10 June 2010 ARTEMIS JU took part in the ARTEMISIA Summer Camp – a high-level 
strategic meeting defining the R&D agenda in embedded systems in Europe.  

The  peak  of  the  events  was  the  ARTEMIS-ITEA2  Co-Summit  in  Gent  on  26-27  October 
2010.  This  was  an  annual  event  during  which  ARTEMIS  presented  its  role  and  objectives, 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
and participated in an exhibition space with all its 25 presently running projects. A "student 
day"  was  also  held,  exposing  the  real  world  of  embedded  systems  to  students  to  encourage 
their  career  choice  in  the  field.  In  addition,  a  workshop  for  the  project  coordinators  was 
organised  to  discuss  progress  on  the  industrial  priorities  of  the  ARTEMIS-SRA  and  to 
evaluate  the  non-R&D  activities,  such  as  SME  involvement,  community  building,  etc.  The 
Co-summit  was  an  all-time  record  event  in  size;  more  than  600  people  from  22  countries 
participated in the event and 90 stands at exhibition represented all running projects of ITEA 
and ARTEMIS and partnering organisations.  

During the year, ARTEMIS published also several information brochures on the ongoing and 
the future calls for proposals, and three numbers of the quarterly ARTEMIS Magazine. The 
Undertaking improved it visual identity too, by re-designing its logo.  

An  overview  of  the  ARTEMIS  projects  was  produced  in  the  ARTEMIS  Book  of  Projects, 
Volume 1. This publication of almost 100 pages contains the 25 running ARTEMIS projects 
and  articles  that  were  published  in  the  ARTEMIS  Magazine.  The  ARTEMIS  book  was 
designed as a corporate identity gift of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking, as well as being a 
brochure.  It  has  been  distributed  to  high-level  authorities,  ARTEMIS  Governing  Board  and 
PAB, member representatives of the ARTEMIS Industry Association, Directors of the ETPs 
and newly established PPPs, ARTEMIS project leaders, etc. 

Interaction  with  the  press  occurred  mainly  via  press  releases  and  arranged  interviews  on 
different  topics  –  briefings  on  the  Co-Summit  and  on  the  ARTEMIS  Brokerage  event,  an 
informative release on the submitted proposals in the 2010 call, etc.  

Besides, the web site (http://www.artemis-ju.eu) has been an important tool for the ARTEMIS 
JU for publishing its objectives and announcements on the calls, but also for providing up-to-
date information to the stakeholders. In the first quarter of 2010, the site has been significantly 
upgraded visually, much of the antiquated text replaced, information about the ARTEMIS JU 
office and its staff was added, and the appearance tidied up.  

Calls for proposals 

The  ARTEMIS  JU  supports  R&D  activities  through  open  and  competitive  calls  for 
proposals  published  on  a  yearly  basis,  to  attract  the  best  European  research  ideas  and 
capacities  in  the  field  of  embedded  computing  systems.  The  ARTEMIS  JU  manages  and 
coordinates  research  activities  through  a  10-year,  €  2.5  bi llion  research  programme  on 
embedded  computing  systems.  The  programme  is  open  to  organisations  in  the  EU  Member 
States and Associated Countries. Selected projects are co-financed by the Joint Undertaking 
and  the  Member  States  that  have  joined  ARTEMIS.  The  ARTEMIS  JU  implements 
significant  parts  of  the  ARTEMIS–ETP  Strategic  Research  Agenda  co-funded  by  industry, 
research organisations, Member States and the Commission's own ICT programme.  

ARTEMIS  applies  a  two-stage  procedure:  proposers  must  first  submit  Project  Outlines 
(POs),  followed  by  the  submission  of  Full  Project  Proposals  (FPPs).  The  submission  of  an 
eligible PO is mandatory for the submission of a FPP. This is a detailed version of the PO and 
takes into account the feedback from the experts. Projects are selected for funding based on 
the quality of this document. The evaluation criteria and sub-criteria, including weights and 
thresholds,  and  the  selection  and  award  criteria  are  set  out  in  the  ARTEMIS  Annual  Work 
Programme 2010. 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
Proposals  submitted  to  ARTEMIS  JU  calls  undergo  a  technical  evaluation  and  selections 
process  carried  out  with  the  assistance  of  independent  experts.  This  process  ensures  that 
allocation of the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking's public funding follows the principles of equal 
treatment, excellence and competition. 

Funding  for  ARTEMIS  projects  follows  a  unique  tripartite  model.  Much  of  the  funding  is 
provided  to  the  partners  by  their  own  government  or  regional  agency,  with  whom  a  grant 
agreement is set up. The ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking also provides funding directly to the 
partners to the amount of 16.7% of their eligible costs. This funding model has been working 
well in the first years of the Joint Undertaking, but with certain limitations – mainly due to the 
strongly  reduced  level  of  commitments  from  the  Member  States  in  the  context  of  the 
economic and financial crisis. 

Concerning  the  first  (2008)  and  second  call  (2009),  the  Annual  Report  on  the  progress 
achieved by the JTI JUs in 2009 prepared by the Commission gives detailed information on 
these calls. 

The  ARTEMIS  JU  has  managed  its  third  call  for  proposals  in  2010  as  planned.  It  was 
launched  on  26  February  2010  and  in  the  end  of  November  2010  the  negotiations  have 
started. Since the outcome of the negotiations was planned for January 2011, the Commission 
shall present the definitive list of the grant agreements signed under this call in its next year's 
report on the progress achieved by the JTI JUs. 

5.3. 

Call 3 ARTEMIS-2010-1 

5.3.1. 

Summary information 

ARTEMIS published its third call for proposals on 26 February 2010.  

The results arising from projects following the 2010 call were expected to demonstrate their 
contribution to the ARTEMIS JU high-level objectives set out below. ARTEMIS set 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  2010  ARTEMIS  calls  for  proposals  had  to  address  the  design,  development  and 
deployment  of  ubiquitous,  interoperable  and  cost-effective,  powerful,  safe  and  secure 
electronics and software systems. It should deliver on three industrial priorities: 1) Reference 
designs and architectures, 2) Seamless connectivity and middleware, and 3) Design methods 
and tools.  

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
In  addition  to  the  industrial  priorities,  ARTEMIS  JU  proposals  had  to  fit  into  one  of  the  8 
specific ARTEMIS Sub-Programme (ASP) priorities for 2010, which were determined in the 
ARTEMIS Annual Work Programme for 2010 as follows: 

•  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. 

The timeline of the call is shown on Figure 24 below: 

Figure 24. Timeline of the ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals 

The  total  budget  for  the  call  included  an  indicative  ARTEMIS  JU  contribution  of  €  33.1 
million and contributions from the Member States estimated at € 60.2 million. The exact 
commitment by Member State is shown in the table below: 

 ARTEMIS JU Member States (M€) 

Austria 

Belgium 

Cyprus 

5  Hungary 

2 

0 

Ireland 

Italy 

Czech Republic 

0.8  Latvia 

Germany 

8  Netherlands 

0.6 

1 

8 

0.22 

6 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
 
 ARTEMIS JU Member States (M€) 

Denmark 

2  Norway 

Estonia 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

0.3  Portugal 

4  Romania 

6  Sweden 

4  Slovenia 

2  United Kingdom 

1.5 

0.8 

0 

3 

1 

4 

Table 27. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals. Funding by Member States 

5.3.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted 

The 2010 call was published on 26 February 2010 with a two-step procedure: deadline for 
submission of Project Outlines (POs) on 26 March 2010 and of Full Project Proposals (FPPs) 
on  1  September  2010.  Submission  of  a  PO  was  mandatory,  although  not  gating.  In  both 
phases,  the  proposals  had  to  be  submitted  electronically  to  the  ARTEMIS  JU  via  the  FP7 
Electronic Proposal Submission System (EPSS). 

The 2010 call for proposals was the second ARTEMIS call to operate in a two-phase process 
call after the one launched in 2009. The call published in 2008 was one-stage.  

The  PO  phase  yielded  73  proposals,  1  of  which  was  ineligible.  The  remaining  72  eligible 
proposals  were  reviewed  and  feedback  was  given  to  the  applicants.  For  the  FPP  phase,  47 
proposals were received by 1 September 2010 and the evaluations were completed in October 
2010. 

Stage 1 – Project Outlines (POs) 

In  total,  72  eligible  POs  have  been  submitted  for  evaluation  involving  1,028  participants 
from 29 countries. Regarding the topic distribution, as seen from the graph below, the most 
attractive was ASP3 "Smart environments and scalable digital services", which gathered 18% 
of the submitted proposals at that stage. 

ASP8; 10%

ASP1; 24%

ASP7; 13%

ASP6; 9%

ASP2; 8%

ASP5; 11%

ASP4; 6%

ASP3; 18%

Figure 25. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals – Stage 1. ASP distribution as submitted 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
 
The total individual participations (each partner participating in multiple proposals was only 
counted  once)  were  745,  of  which  278  declared  as  SMEs  (38%).  30%  of  the  participants 
belonged  to  public  and  research  organisations.  The  data  for  the  proposals  eligible  for 
evaluation of the PO phase are detailed in the following chart:  

Figure 26. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals – Stage 1. Typology of applicants in POs 

With regard to geographical distribution of the POs, a total of 29 countries took part at the 
first  stage  of  the  call.  Spain  accounted  the  biggest  number  of  participants,  followed  by 
Germany, Italy and Finland.  

250

200

150

100

50

0

ES DE IT FI UK NL AT CZ FR EL SE BE HU DK NO PT IE SI CH RO EE LV LT AU BG KR PL TR US  

Figure 27. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals – Stage 1. Applicants by country 

They  requested  a  total  funding  of  €  704  million.  The  total  requested  funding  was  split  as 
follows:  The  total  requested  national  funding  was  €  259  million  and  the  total  requested 
ARTEMIS  JU  funding  was  €  377  million,  of  which  €  118  million  EU  funding.  This  is 
graphically  presented  by  country  on  Figure  28  below.  The  total  requested  funding  by  SME 
partners was € 90 million (24%).  

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
 
 €

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

Requested in PO

National Budget

Oversubscription Rate

70,00 

60,00 

50,00 

40,00 

30,00 

20,00 

10,00 

-

Oversubscription Rate

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0,000

DE

IT

FI

NL AT ES UK FR SE EL BE DK NO IE

SI CZ PT HU EE LV RO

Country

Figure 28. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals – Stage 1. Requested national funding by POs 

As  a  tool  to  aid  the  participating  ARTEMIS  Member  States  in  preparing  their  budget 
allocations,  and  also  to  provide  valuable  feedback  for  monitoring  the  programme,  the 
Executive Director asked the assessors to judge the relative maturity of each project outline, 
classifying them on a scale of 1 ("very mature") to 4 ("below average"): MI=3 is regarded as 
"average" while MI=2 is "mature"). This Maturity Index information was given only to the 
PAB members, and not distributed to the proposers or otherwise outside the JU. 

ASP1 ASP2  ASP3 ASP4 ASP5 ASP6 ASP7 ASP8  Total 

MI=1 

MI=2 

MI=3 

MI=4 

2 

4 

9 

1 

Total 

16 

1 

1 

1 

5 

8 

0 

3 

6 

5 

14 

0 

1 

3 

1 

5 

1 

2 

2 

1 

6 

0 

2 

3 

1 

6 

0 

4 

1 

2 

7 

0 

3 

5 

1 

9 

4 

20 

30 

17 

71* 

* For one proposal, the experts didn't find any relation with any of the 8 ASPs. 

Table 28. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals – Stage 1. Maturity indexes by ASP 

Over  all  proposals,  the  peak  of  42%  is  in  MI=3  (average),  which  had  to  be  expected.  The 
value in MI=2 is also relatively high, while the number in category MI=1 is quite small (6%). 
This may indicate a more severe rating by the experts for the highest maturity category, but 
the  distribution  is  otherwise  reasonable.  The  24%  of  proposals  in  MI=4  represent  some 
proposals  that  are  often  very  incomplete.  In  future  calls,  this  "number  reservation  strategy" 
will  be  discouraged  and  accurate  instructions  will  allow  all  PO's  not  matching  minimum 
requirements to be declared "ineligible". 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Stage 2 – Full Project Proposals (FPPs) 

Out  of  the  72  POs,  47  FPPs  were  successfully  submitted  by  the  deadline  of  1  September 
2010.  As  anticipated,  all  four  of  the  most  mature  outline  proposals  were  finalised  and 
submitted as full project proposals. A small number of MI=2 proposals were not re-submitted, 
and about half of the coordinators of the least mature proposals decided not to re-submit. A 
little more than half of the MI=3 proposals were not re-submitted. 

The total number of participations was 840, with 633 individual participants of which 34% 
– SMEs. Regarding the topic distribution, as seen from the graph below, the most attractive 
this  time  was  ASP1  "Methods  and  processes  for  safety-relevant  embedded  systems",  which 
gathered 25% of the submitted proposals at that stage. 

ASP8
7%

ASP7
15%

ASP1
25%

ASP6
11%

ASP5
16%

ASP4
9%

ASP2
8%

ASP3
9%

Figure 29. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals – Stage 2. ASP distribution as submitted 

The  initial  analysis,  based  on  the  declarations  of  partners,  showed  that  total  individual 
participations (each partner participating in multiple proposals was only counted once) were 
663, of which 226 declared as SMEs (34%). 25% of the participants belonged to public and 
research organisations. The data for proposals eligible for evaluation of the FPP phase of the 
call are detailed in the following chart: 

Figure 30. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals – Stage 2. Typology of applicants in FPPs 

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
 
 
The average partners per project at the FPP stage equalled to 17.87. The proposals in the 2010 
call  showed  a  substantial  number  of  large  pan-European  initiatives  being  undertaken  by  the 
constituency. There was also the requisite number of more targeted proposals.  

With  regard  to  geographical  distribution  of  the  FPP,  28  countries  continued  at  the  second 
stage of the call. The average number of participating countries in a proposal was 6.74 – the 
largest  number  being  13  and  the  smallest  being  4  (one  more  than  the  strict  minimum  for 
eligibility).  

Figure  31  shows  a  strong  Spanish  participation  in  the  programme,  particularly  through  the 
large  number  of  SMEs,  which  have  actively  subscribed  since  the  outset.  Italy  was  also 
strongly  represented  at  this  stage  of  the  call,  followed  by  Germany,  Finland  and  the 
Netherlands. 

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

ES IT DE FI NL UK FR AT CZ SE EL BE HU DK NO PT

IE

SI

LV BG EE KR LT

LU PL RO TR US

Figure 31. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals – Stage 2. Applicants by country 

The total requested funding by the 47 FPPs was € 589 million. The total requested national 
funding reached € 215 million and the total requested ARTEMIS JU funding amounted to € 
313 million, of which € 98 million EU funding. This is graphically presented by country on 
Figure 32 below. 

In  terms  of  EFTA  contribution,  it  represented  €  1,356,163  for  the  operational  credits 
allocated to the call 201031.  

The total requested funding by SME partners was € 156 million (27%).  

31 

Source: SINCOM data from budget appropriation BGUE-B2010-09.040102-C1-CE that corresponds to 
the operational credits for the ARTEMIS JU for 2010. 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

45,00 

40,00 

35,00 

30,00 

25,00 

20,00 

15,00 

10,00 

5,00 

-

National Funding

National Commit

Over-subscription ratio

12,00

10,00

8,00

6,00

4,00

2,00

0,00

DE ES FI

IT UK NL AT CZ FR EL SE BE NO DK HU PT IE SI LV EE RO CY BG LU TR LT PL US KR

Figure 32. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals – Stage 2. Requested national funding by FPPs 

5.3.3.  Evaluation procedure  

Stage 1 – POs 

73 POs for research projects were submitted in response to first phase of this call, of which 72 
satisfied the eligibility criteria.  

The RiVET software32 was used to support and to track both off-site reading by experts and 
the progress of the panel meeting. The latter was held in Brussels on 2-6 May 2010. Each PO 
was assessed by two independent experts selected from the lists provided by the PAB and 
by  ARTEMIS-IA.  The  individual  assessment  reports  were  summarised  by  a  third  expert, 
acting as rapporteur. 

For the first time, a tool facilitating further analysis was used at the first phase of the call to 
judge the subjective quality of the POs and to observe the level of maturity of the response of 
the  ARTEMIS  community  to  the  work  programme.  To  that  end,  POs  were  classified  into  4 
Maturity  Index  levels  –  from  "Below  average"  to  "Very  mature  proposal".  This  information 
was not communicated externally, but did provide the ARTEMIS JU with an insight on the 
activities of the R&D community. The obtained results were also used by the PAB members 
in refining their budget allocations, where possible. 

The evaluation results of this first phase were communicated to participants on 18 May 2010. 
They were notified on the level of satisfying the assessment criteria specified in the call, but 
were also informed by the national authorities on the fulfilment of the eligibility criteria for 
national  funding.  The  submission  of  an  eligible  PO  was  mandatory  for  submission  of  the 
subsequent full project proposal. 

32 

Software used for the evaluation of proposals. 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Stage 2 – FPPs 

47 FPPs were submitted in this phase, all eligibility criteria. The evaluation was conducted 
according to the rules described in the 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 the ARTEMIS JU 
Executive Director. The panel produced the final evaluation result for each proposal after an 
in-depth discussion on the basis of the four individual reports from the experts.  

The 5 evaluation criteria were: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

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 67 experts. Synthesis was done by one rapporteur 
per project. Consolidation and calibration of evaluation scores were performed by 15 experts, 
meeting  in  Brussels  from  4  to  8  October  2010.  Consolidation  of  the  evaluation  summary 
reports was achieved through three sub-panels, chaired by one EC person plus one JU person. 
Calibration  of  final  scores  in  the  evaluation  summary  reports  was  done  in  the  final  panel 
discussion chaired by the Executive Director. 

5.3.4.  Evaluation results 

The applicants were informed of the evaluation results on 25 October 2010. At this stage, 28 
proposals (60% of the total FPPs) were evaluated above threshold (40 points minimum on a 
maximum  of  60)  and  19  were  evaluated  below  this  selection  threshold.  Out  of  the  28,  11 
projects were retained for negotiation, 6 were placed in a reserve list, and 11 projects were 
deemed  not  feasible  financially  though  above  the  minimum  score  threshold.  19  projects 
(40% of the FPPs) were rejected as they were below the selection threshold.  

A total of 10 projects successfully completed the negotiation phase. One project negotiation 
was  cancelled  by  the  Executive  Director  due  to  the  changing  market  situation  for  the 
operating system Symbian. 

The  10  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  satisfactory  manner.  About  33%  of  investment 
concerned projects related to safety critical systems (typically for transport applications), 4% 
–  to  smart  environments  and  digital  services,  and  14%  were  earmarked  for  computing 
architectures  projects.  Additional  18%  were  spent  energy  reduction  in  urban  areas,  and 
another  12%  –  on  human-centric  design.  One  project  in  topic  "Health",  with  8%  of  the 
funding,  was  retained.  12%  of  the  total  contribution  was  spent  on  secure  digital  services. 
Unfortunately,  no  project  addressing  industrial  efficiency  (manufacturing  and  logistics)  was 
retained. 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
In  terms  of  the  number  of  participants,  the  projects  selected  for  funding comprise a total of 
227  participations,  of  which  103  were  large  enterprises,  66  –  SMEs  (29%),  and  58 
represented  public  research  organisations,  such  as  universities  and  institutes.  The  following 
graph shows their relative distribution: 

Figure 33. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals. Typology of applicants in the proposals for funding 

With  regard  to  geographical  distribution  of  the  proposals  selected  for  funding,  a  total  of 21 
countries  have  been  presented.  Spain  gave  way  to  Italy  (42),  reaching  the  same  number  of 
applicants as Germany (27). The following chart shows a breakdown of participant type per 
country, taken into account all participations: 

Figure 34. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals. Participant type per country  
in the proposals selected for funding 

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
 
 
In  terms  of  the  number  of  countries  involved  in  each  project,  they  varied  from  10  to  4.  No 
project has the strict minimum of 3 participating countries, and the average of 6.4 countries 
per project is significantly higher than has been historically the case. This is evidence that the 
ARTEMIS  programme  started  attracting  not  only  larger  initiatives,  but  also  various 
international partners in its projects, calling on expertise from a broader base of participants.  

Overall,  the  Public  Authorities  Board  allocated  €  82.9  million  of  public  funds  from  the 
ARTEMIS Member States and the European Union to those 10 projects amounting to a total 
funding of € 167.5 million. The € 28 million EU 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 the rate of 91.2% and the EU 
budget – at the rate of 84.5%.  

The projects ranged in size from € 45 million to  € 3.3 million, with 3 projects of over € 15 
million, representing 58% of the total funding. This was in line with the ARTEMIS  "Think 
Big"  approach,  where  larger  projects  are  supported  by  smaller,  more  targeted  initiatives  in 
addressing the goals of the Annual Work Programme. 

Industry 

Public & Research 
Organisations 

SMEs 

TOTAL (€) 

106,114,720.60

31,068,725.22 

30,280,204.89  167,463,650.71

27,682,748.66 

16,903,600.96 

10,313,050.43  54,899,400.04 

Total Eligible 
Costs 

National Funding 
Requested 

EU Funding 

17,721,158.34 

5,188,477.11 

5,056,794.22 

27,966,429.67 

Total Eligible 
Costs 

National Funding 
Requested 

National Funding 
Rate 

Total Funding 
Rate 

63% 

50% 

26% 

43% 

19% 

31% 

54% 

71% 

18% 

19% 

34% 

51% 

--- 

--- 

33% 

49% 

* The ARTEMIS JU contribution was fixed at 16.7% of the total eligible costs 

Table 29. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals. Funding breakdown per partner type 

5.3.5.  Grant agreements signed 

On 20 October 2010, the ARTEMIS JU Executive Director received a mandate to enter into 
negotiations  with  8  of  the  11  highest  ranked  projects  and  to  investigate  possible 
reconfiguration of the remaining three. This mandate was extended in November to embrace 
the negotiation of the 3 FPPs, with the mandate ending in mid-April 2011.  

During  this  period  it  became  clear  that  the  negotiations  of  one  of  the  original  8  proposals 
would be irrevocably unsuccessful due to changes in the corporate strategy of the coordinator. 
In order to allow the national funding that became available due to the closure of this project 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
 
to  be  re-allocated,  the  process  of  signing  of  the  Joint  Undertaking  grant  agreements  was 
temporarily put on hold until a decision was taken on the re-allocation. The grant agreement 
preparation work was subsequently re-started, though by June 2011 no contract had yet been 
signed.  The  expected  signature  dates  indicated  in  the  table  below  are  dependent  on  the 
ARTEMIS  JU  receiving  signed  NGA  (National  Grant  Agreement)  declarations  from  the 
coordinators' Member States: to date only two such certificates have been received. 

The signature of the JU grant agreements in itself is not critical for allowing the projects to 
start, and two projects planned to kick off in March, three in April, two in May, two in June 
and one in July 2011. For two projects, however, a combination of internal delays and delay 
in  securing  a  NGA  led  to  a  request  to  move  their  official  starting  date  to  the  October- 
November 2011 timeframe. 

EN 

107 

   EN 

 
№ 

Project 
number 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

Total national 
funding 

ARTEMIS JU 
contribution 

Additional 
own resources 

Total costs 

Signature date 
(expected) 

1. 

269334 

ASTUTE 

Pro-active decision support for data-
intensive environments 

2. 

269336 

D3CoS 

Designing Dynamic Distributed 
Cooperative Human-Machine Systems 

5,362,482.07 

2,301,932.48 

6,119,612.30 

13,784,026.85 

Q4 2011 

5,193,398.75 

2,429,633.51 

6,925,671.39 

14,548,703.65 

Q3 2011 

3. 

269354  ENCOURAGE  Embedded Intelligent Controls for 

1,756,412.94 

1,063,579.18 

3,548,745.48 

6,368,737.60 

Q4 2011 

Buildings with Renewable Generation and 
Storage 

4. 

269356 

HIGH 
PROFILE 

High-throughput Production of FunctIonal 
3D images of the brain 

5,017,647.04 

2,825,739.87 

9,077,211.09 

16,920,598.00 

Q4 2011 

5. 

6. 

269374 

IoE 

Internet of Energy for Electric Mobility 

14,370,762.28 

7,587,182.26 

23,474,284.57 

45,432,229.11 

Q4 2011 

269335 

MBAT 

Combined Model-based Analysis and 
Testing of Embedded Systems 

11,398,412.00 

5,761,237.31 

17,338,777.69 

34,498,427.00 

Q3 2011 

7. 

269317 

nSHIELD 

New embedded Systems arcHItecturE for 
multi-Layer Dependable solutions 

8. 

269362 

PRESTO 

ImProvements of industrial Real Time 
Embedded SysTems devel0pment process 

9. 

269265 

pSAFECER 

Safety Certification of Software-intensive 
Systems with Reusable Components 

5,091,894.30 

2,249,372.43 

6,128,029.77 

13,469,296.50 

Q4 2011 

2,540,068.00 

1,446,709.98 

4,676,156.02 

8,662,934.00 

Q4 2011 

2,599,302.68 

1,739,991.20 

6,079,815.12 

10,419,109.00 

Q4 2011 

10. 

269389  WSN DPCM  WSN Development, Planning and 

1,607,670.00 

559,063.40 

1,180,951.60 

3,347,685.00 

Q4 2011 

Commissioning & Maintenance ToolSet 

TOTAL 

€ 54,938,050 

€ 27,964,442 

€ 84,549,255 

€ 167,451,747 

--- 

Table 30. ARTEMIS JU 2010 call for proposals. List of proposals selected for funding 

EN 

108 

EN 

 
  
6. 

PROGRESS ACHIEVED BY THE ENIAC JU 

6.1. 

About the ENIAC JU 

Growing  out  of  the  ENIAC  European  Technology  Platform  (ETP),  the  ENIAC  Joint 
Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as "ENIAC JU") was established by Council Regulation 
(EC)  72/2008  of  20  December  2007as  a  public-private  partnership  between  the  European 
Commission,  the  participating  Member  and  Associated  States  (by  now  21  countries)33  and 
AENEAS34, a non-profit industrial association of R&D actors in the field of semiconductors. 

The ENIAC JU has been set up for a period up to 31 December 2017 with the main objective 
to  tackle  the  research  and  innovation  in  nanoelectronic  technologies  and  smart  components 
and their integration in smart systems faced by the industrial sector. The goal 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  in  nanoelectronics 
technologies and systems.  

The maximum EU contribution to the ENIAC Joint Undertaking covering running costs and 
R&D activities is set to € 450 million paid from  the appropriations in the general budget of 
the European Union allocated to the theme "Information and Communication Technologies" 
of the Specific Programme "Cooperation" under the FP7. The research activities of the entity 
are supported also through financial contributions from the ENIAC Member States amounting 
to at least 1.8 times the EU contribution (€  810 million) and through in-kind contributions by 
research  and  development  organisations  participating  in  projects,  which  at  least  match  the 
contribution of the public authorities. 

Similarly to ARTEMIS, the ENIAC Joint Undertaking is managed by an Executive Director. 
Its governance structure comprises a Governing Board, a Public Authorities Board (PAB) and 
an Industry and Research Committee (IRC). 

6.2.  Main activities of the ENIAC JU in 2010 

After its establishment, ENIAC gradually developed operational capacity, and on 3 May 2010 
it has been granted administrative and operational autonomy from the Commission.  

Key milestones 

•  Launch of the third call for proposals; 

•  Preparation of the fourth call for proposals; 

33 

34 

Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, 
Latvia,  Netherlands,  Norway,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovak  Republic,  Spain,  Sweden  and  the 
United Kingdom. 

The  Association  for  European  Nanoelectronics  Activities  (AENEAS)  is  a  non-profit  industrial 
association  established  on  30  November  2006  to  represent  the  R&D  performers  in  the  ENIAC  Joint 
Undertaking. 

EN 

109 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Updating  the  ENIAC  Research  Agenda  in  cooperation  with  CATRENE  (Cluster  for 

Application and Technology Research in Europe on Nanoelectronics)35; 

•  Implemented the Internal Control Framework;  

•  New staff recruited and prepared the move to the new premises. 

Governance 

The  running  of  the  Governing  Board  and  the  PAB  run  smoothly  in  2010.  The  Governing 
Board held 2 meetings in 2010, while the PAB met 5 times. The IRC organised one official 
meeting. 

The  main  decisions  taken  by  the  Governing  Board  during  the  year  were  related  to  the 
following: 

•  Implementing rules of the Staff Regulations for the appraisal of the Executive Director; 

•  Annual Implementation Plan and Annual Budget Plan 2011; 

•  Revision of the ENIAC JU grant agreement to take into account the changes introduced by 

the Lisbon Treaty;  

•  Multi-annual Strategic Plan and Research Agenda 2011; 

•  Internal Control Framework and Internal Control Standards; 

•  Ex-post audit strategy and Internal Audit Plans; 

•  Nomination of the reporting officers in charge of the appraisal of the Executive Director. 

Communication activities 

The ENIAC JU intensified its communications and dissemination activities in 2010 (brochure, 
project profiles, flyers, etc.), updated its web site, co-organised the European Nanoelectronics 
Forum, and actively participated in dedicated events and international conferences. 

The ENIAC JU concluded in 2010 a Service Level Agreement with its member AENEAS to 
provide communication and public relations support. The ENIAC JU defined and executed in 
2010 a Communication Plan. It established communication goals for its 5 constituencies: 

(1) 

(2) 

Internal to Executive Director / Secretariat 

ENIAC JU Bodies (Governing Board, PAB, Executive Director and IRC) 

•  Contributed to the Annual Activity Report 2009; 

•  Issued  Quarterly  reports  to  the  Governing  Board  showing  progress  versus  plan: 
achievements, issues, actions planned, in form of an Executive Summary and a Narrative; 

•  Organised a National Funding Authorities day; 

•  Had  face-to-face  meetings  with  public  authorities  (Austria,  France,  Germany,  Italy, 

Netherlands, Romania, Spain); 

35 

CATRENE is an industry-driven 4-year EUREKA programme, starting on 1 January 2008, extendable 
to eight years. In the CATRENE programme, 260 partners (as of December 2011) from 18 European 
countries work on the most advanced research challenges in micro/nanoelectronics. 

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(3) 

European  Union  Bodies  (European  Commission,  Council  and  Parliament  /  Budget 
Authority, European Court of Auditors) 

•  Presented  to  the  Commissioners  for  Research  and  for  Digital  Agenda,  presented  the  real 

estate procedure to the Budgetary Committee of the Parliament and of the Council; 

•  Contributed to the Interim Evaluation of the JTIs; 

(4) 

R&D Actors 

•  Published an updated version of the call for proposal including the Guide for Participants; 

•  Executed a communication day for the Project Coordinators; 

(5) 

Public at large 

•  Issued 2 press releases; 

•  Printed and distributed the ENIAC JU brochure and Project Profiles for calls 1 and 2; 

•  Renewed the web site (http://www.eniac.eu); 

•  Co-organised the European Nanoelectronic Forum in Madrid (Spain); 

•  Organized a session and "Building Bridges" event at the conference ICT2010 in Brussels 

(Belgium); 

•  Participated  in  several  events  in  Germany,  Austria,  Italy,  Romania,  sponsored  events  in 

Belgium, France and Germany; 

•  Presented  an  invited  paper  at  the  Sematech  Litho  Workshop  and  presented  the  "LENS" 

project at the Litho Symposium enhancing the international visibility. 

Although  progress  has  been  made,  the  presence  of  the  ENIAC  JU  in  the  media  and  in  the 
public  space  is  still  to  be  improved,  inter  alia  by  making  all  public  documents  and  project 
information readily available on the ENIAC JU web site. 

Calls for proposals 

The ENIAC JU supports R&D activities through open and competitive calls for proposals 
published on a yearly basis, to attract the best European research ideas and capacities in the 
field of nanoelectronics. The ENIAC JU manages and coordinates research activities through 
a  10-year,  €  3  billion  research  programme  on  nanoelectronics.  The  programme  is  open  to 
organisations  in  the  EU  Member  States  and  Associated  Countries.  Selected  projects  are  co-
financed  by  the  Joint  Undertaking  and  the  Member  States  that  have  joined  ENIAC.  The 
ENIAC JU implements significant parts of the ENIAC–ETP Strategic Research Agenda.  

Funding decisions under the  ENIAC  JU  Annual  Work  Programme  are  made  on  the  basis  of 
proposals  submitted  upon  a  call.  Proposals  describe  planned  research  activities  and  give 
information  on  the  applicants  and  the  costs. The  ENIAC  JU  evaluates  all  eligible  proposals 
using independent experts in order to rank the proposals on the basis of the evaluation criteria.  

Following  the  evaluation,  the  Public  Authorities  Board  of  the  ENIAC  JU  decides  on  the 
selection  of  proposals  and  the  allocation  of  funding  (ENIAC  JU  and  national  funding).  The 
ENIAC JU then negotiates with selected proposals taking into account the maximum public 
funding allocated and the potential recommendations for changes.  

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
If  negotiations  are  successfully  concluded  grant  agreements  are  signed  with  ENIAC  JU. 
Participants from ENIAC Member States also conclude national grant agreements with their 
own  national  funding  authorities  as  they  normally  also  receive  a  national  financial 
contribution.  

Concerning  the  first  (2008)  and  second  call  (2009),  the  Annual  Report  on  the  progress 
achieved by the JTI JUs in 2009 prepared by the Commission gives detailed information on 
these calls. 

The  ENIAC  JU  has  launched  its  third  call  for  proposals  in  2010  as  scheduled.  It  was 
published  at  the  same  date  as  the  ARTEMIS  JU'  call  –  on  26  February  2010.  In  the  end  of 
November 2010 the negotiations have already started. Since the outcome of the negotiations 
was  planned  for  January  2011,  the  Commission  shall  present  the  grant  agreements  signed 
under this call in its next year's report on the progress achieved by the JTI JUs. 

6.3. 

Call 3 ENIAC-2010-1  

6.3.1. 

Summary information 

ENIAC published its third call for proposals on 26 February 2010.  

The results arising from projects following the 2010 call were expected to demonstrate their 
contribution to the ENIAC-JU high-level objectives described in the Multi-Annual Strategic 
Plan and in the Annual Work Programme 2010. The selected topics covered the priorities of 
the stakeholders, including those of the Member States. 

The topics and proposals are grouped in four major areas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Advances in electric mobility; 

in  n  and  n+1  Complementary  Metal  Oxide 
Applications  driving  advances 
Semiconductor (CMOS) technology nodes and their derivatives, related packaging and 
design technologies; 

Energy efficient, ecologically benign future manufacturing technologies; 

Alternative energies value chain and efficient power grid. 

The timeline of the call is shown on Figure 35 below: 

EN 

112 

   EN 

 
Figure 35. Timeline of the ENIAC JU 2010 call for proposals 

The  total  budget  for  the  call  included  an  indicative  ENIAC  JU  contribution  of  €  30.1 
million and contributions from the Member States estimated at € 54.8 million. The exact 
commitment by Member State is shown in the table below: 

ENIAC JU Member States (M€) 

Austria 

Belgium 

3.0 

Italy 

2.0  Netherlands 

Czech Republic 

0.4  Norway 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

0.0  Poland 

1.5  Portugal 

7.0  Romania 

12.0  Slovak Rep. 

1.5  Spain 

0.6  Sweden 

1.0  United Kingdom 

10 

8.0 

1.5 

0.8 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

1.5 

1 

1.5 

Table 31. ENIAC JU 2010 call for proposals. Funding by Member States 

6.3.2.  Analysis of proposals submitted  

The ENIAC JU 2010 call was published on 26 February 2010 and operated in a two-phase 
mode.  The  Project  Outline  (PO)  phase  yielded  34  proposals  for  review  before  the  set 
deadline  –  30  April  2010.  This  represented  an  increase  of  26%  in  comparison  to  the  year 
before. Submission of a PO was mandatory, although not gating. In both phases, the proposals 
had  to  be  submitted  electronically  to  the  ENIAC  JU  via  the  FP7  Electronic  Proposal 
Submission System (EPSS). 

EN 

113 

   EN 

 
 
The submitted POs requested a total funding of € 707.8 million. This funding was split as 
follows: the requested national funding was € 234.8 million and the requested ENIAC JU 
funding was € 118.3 million. 

In the Full Project Proposal (FPP) phase, 24 proposals were received by the deadline – 31 
July 2010. The total requested funding by the 24 FPPs was € 482.8 million. The requested 
national funding reached € 159.8 million and the requested ENIAC JU funding amounted 
to € 80.7 million. 

6.3.3.  Evaluation procedure 

24  POs  for  research  projects  were  submitted  in  response  to  first  phase  of  this  call,  all  of 
which satisfied the eligibility criteria.  

Each FPP 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.  

The 5 evaluation criteria were: 

•  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. 

6.3.4.  Evaluation results 

The  applicants  were  informed  of  the  evaluation  results  in  October  2010.  At  this  stage,  21 
FPPs  were  evaluated  above  threshold  and  3  were  evaluated  below  the  selection  threshold. 
Out of the 21, 10 projects were retained for negotiation; no projects were placed on a reserve 
list.  

The total number of participants in the 21 proposals proposed for funding was 212. These 
212 participants were supported financially by 17 ENIAC Member States36. An overview of 
the number of proposals in the different stages of the three calls launched so far by ENIAC 
(2008-2010) can be found in the graph below: 

36 

Estonia, Hungary, Latvia and Norway do not participate in this call. 

EN 

114 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 36. Number of proposals in the different stages of the ENIAC JU 2008-2010 calls 

The trend of a strong SME participation continued in 2010. In the FPPs selected for funding 
in the 2010 call there were 212 participants coming from 145 organisations, among which 
there  were  48  SMEs  representing  33.1%  of  the  participating  entities.  The  situation  is 
illustrated on the figure below: 

Figure 37. ENIAC JU 2010 call for proposals. Typology of applicants in the proposals for funding 

The SMEs contributed € 33.0 million (16.4%) of the total eligible costs, and received € 13.3 
million (15.2%) of the total public funding (14.8% of the national funding and 15.7% of the 
ENIAC JU funding). The funding distribution is graphically shown on Figure 38: 

Figure 38. ENIAC JU 2010 call for proposals. Requested funding per type of participant 

EN 

115 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
For reference, the statistics since the inception of the programme indicate that in the period 
2008-2010 the ENIAC JU projects accounted for 627 participants from 336 organisations, 
out of which 140 (41.7%) – SMEs. In conclusion, SMEs represent 41.7% of the participating 
organisations and received 16.3% of the ENIAC JU grants awarded. 

The  total  requested  funding  for  the  21  proposals  evaluated  above  threshold  the  second 
stage was € 482.8 million. The requested national funding amounted to € 159.8 million and 
the  requested  ENIAC  JU  funding  was  €  80.7  million.  The  total  requested  funding  by  SME 
partners was € 33 million (16.4 %).  

All  10  projects  have  successfully  completed  the  negotiation  phase.  The  success  rate  was 
41.7%.  In  terms  of  geographical  distribution,  the  projects  in  the  2010  call  had  between  3 
and 12 participating countries: 

Figure 39. ENIAC JU 2010 call for proposals.  
Number of participants and countries in the calls selected for funding 

For  reference,  in  all  28  projects  selected  for  funding  since  the  ENIAC  programme  start,  all 
ENIAC  Member States  except  Estonia and Latvia have  been present in at  least one project, 
while  Denmark  and  Switzerland  participated  without  becoming  an  ENIAC  Member.  The 
number of actually participating countries is 21. 

Overall,  €  87.6  million  of  public  funds  were  allocated  to  the  10  proposals  selected  for 
funding  with  a  total  requested  contributions  amounting  to  €  201.1  million.  The  €  33.6 
million EU funding resulted in a leverage effect of 6 to 1. National budgets published in the 
call were increased by some countries to permit strategically important projects to be funded. 
The EU indicative budget was went up by 12% following this increase. 

The funding situation in the call is summarised in Table 32 below. It shows that the average 
oversubscription rate at the PO stage is about 4 times, and almost 3 times in the FPP evaluated 
above thresholds. 

Available 
budget 

Total requested funding  Min 180.5 

National funding 

ENIAC JU funding 

54.8 

30.1 

POs 

707.8 

234.8 

118.3 

FPPs above 
threshold 

Granted 
funding 

482.8 

159.8 

80.7 

201.1 

54.0 

33.6 

Table 32. ENIAC JU 2010 call for proposals. Requested funding in the different stages of the call 

EN 

116 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
The distribution of total eligible costs, national funding and JU grants per area of research in 
the projects arising from the 2010 and in the projects selected for funding since the inception 
of the programme (2008-2010) is shown in the next graph: 

Figure 40. Total costs per research area in the ENIAC JU 2010 call and in all projects (2008-2010) 

6.3.5.  Grant agreements signed 

All 10 consortia were invited to negotiations on 2 November 2010 for conclusion of grant 
agreements. The projects kick-off was planned for in 2011.  

Nonetheless,  delays  have  been  experienced  by  some  participants  in  the  establishment  of 
National  Grant  Agreements  (NGA)  which  consequently  slowed  down  the  signature  of  the 
ENIAC JU  grant agreements.  Consortia  have also experienced difficulties in entering into a 
Project Consortium Agreements. Although this was a legal requirement, it appeared to be very 
difficult to finalise it in less than one year.  

EN 

117 

   EN 

 
 
 
№ 

Project 
acronym 

Project title 

Total national 
funding 

ENIAC JU 
contribution 

Additional own 
resources 

Total costs 

Signature date 
(expected) 

1. 

ARTEMOS  Agile RF Transceivers and Front-Ends for Future Smart 

8,543,956 

6,836,061 

25,554,478 

40,934,495 

8/2011 

Multi-Standard Communications Applications 

2. 

3. 

4. 

EnLight 

Energy Efficient and Intelligent Lighting Systems 

10,833,438 

6,899,794 

23,582,899 

41,316,131 

8/2011 

EPAMO 

Energy-efficient piezo-MEMS tunable RF front-end 
antenna systems for mobile devices 

5,269,609 

2,224,524 

5,826,370 

13,320,503 

18/3/2011 

ERG 

Energy for a green society 

8,138,528 

4,293,851 

13,279,305 

25,711,684 

2012 (Italian 
coordinator) 

5. 

HEECS 

High Efficiency Electronics Cooking Systems 

899,690 

833,894 

4,009,515 

4,933,378 

5/4/2011 

6.  MotorBrain  Nanoelectronics for Electric Vehicle Intelligent Failsafe 

11,021,728 

6,112,613 

19,468,130 

36,602,471 

5/4/2011 

Drive Train 

7.  NANOCOM  Reconfigurable Microsystem Based on Miniaturized and 

1,221,550 

930,285 

3,418,736 

5,570,571 

30/3/2011 

Nanostructured RF-MEMS 

8. 

NanoTEG 

Nanostructured ThermoElectric Systems for Green 
Transport Applications 

1,140,869 

1,016,910 

3,931,502 

6,089,281 

7/2011 

9. 

PARSIMO 

Partitioning and Modeling of SiP 

1,847,175 

814,244 

2,214,294 

4,875,713 

7/2011 

10. 

TOISE 

Trusted Computing for European Embedded Systems 

5,048,449 

3,617,522 

12,995,835 

21,661,806 

7/2011 

TOTAL 

€ 53,155,271 

€ 33,579,698 

€ 114,281,064 

€ 201,016,033 

--- 

Table 33. ENIAC JU 2010 call for proposals. List of proposals selected for funding

EN 

118 

EN 

 
  
7. 

CONCLUSION 

2010  was  the  first  year  of  autonomous  functioning  for  most  of  the  Joint  Technology 
Initiatives  Joint  Undertakings  after  they  developed  operational  capacity  to  implement  their 
own  budget.  Despite  the  fact  that  the  JTI  JUs'  internal  structures  were  not  yet  working 
optimally  and  they  have  still  to  recover  from  the  initial  operational  delays,  the  results 
achieved by the five JTI JUs reviewed in this document prove that they are on the right way 
towards achieving the set objectives.  

Taking into account that together they represent a total investment of €10 billion and have the 
concrete  capacity  to  accelerate  the  generation  of  new  knowledge  and  innovation  in  their 
industries through organisation of successful calls for proposals, encouraging cooperation and 
involving  a  variety  of  stakeholders,  especially  SMEs,  the  JTI  instruments  might  play  an 
important  role  for  the  EU  economy  in  the  future.  The  lessons  learned  and  the  information 
gained from the first ongoing projects should be skilfully used to continue at this competitive 
pace. 

EN 

119 

   EN 

 
8. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

(11) 

(12) 

(13) 

(14) 

REFERENCES 

ARTEMIS JU Annual Activity Report 2010 

ARTEMIS JU Annual Work Programme 2010 

Clean Sky JU Annual Activity Report 2010 

Clean Sky JU Annual Implementation Plan 2010 

Commission  Recommendation  2003/361/EC  of  6  May  2003  concerning  the 
definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, OJ L 124, 20.05.2003, p. 36 

Commission  Staff  Working  Document  "Joint  Technology  Initiatives:  Background, 
State-of-Play  and  Main  Features",  SEC(2007)  692,  Brussels,  15.05.2007Designing 
together the "ideal house" for public-private partnerships in European research, JTI 
Sherpas’ Group, Final Report, January 2010 

Commission  Staff  Working  Document  accompanying  the  Communication  from  the 
Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  "Partnering  in  Research  and 
Innovation", SEC(2011) 1072 final, Brussels, 21.09.2011 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  521/2008  of  30  May  2008  setting  up  the  Fuel  Cells  and 
Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, OJ L 153, 12.06.2008, p. 1 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  71/2008  of  20  December  2007  setting  up  the  Clean  Sky 
Joint Undertaking, OJ L 30, 04.02.2008, p. 1 

Council Regulation (EC) 72/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the ENIAC Joint 
Undertaking, OJ L 30, 04.02.2008, p. 21 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  73/2008  of  20  December  2007  setting  up  the  Joint 
Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative 
Medicines, OJ L 30, 04.02.2008, p. 38 

Council Regulation (EC) 74/2008 of 20 December 2007 on the establishment of the 
ARTEMIS  Joint  Undertaking  to  implement  a  Joint  Technology  Initiative  in 
Embedded Computing Systems, OJ L 30, 04.02.2008, p. 52 

Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  1605/2002  of  25  June  2002  on  the  Financial 
Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 
16.09.2002, p. 1 

Decision  1982/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18 
December  2006  concerning  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  of  the  EC  for 
research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), OJ L 
412, 30.12.2006, p. 1 

(15) 

ENIAC JU Annual Activity Report 2010 

EN 

120 

   EN 

 
(16) 

ENIAC JU Annual Work Programme 2010 

(17) 

FCH JU Annual Activity Report 2010 

(18) 

FCH JU Annual Implementation Plan 2010 

(19) 

FCH JU Multi-Annual Implementation Plan 2008-2013 

(20) 

(21) 

(22) 

(23) 

First Interim Evaluation of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC Joint Technology Initiatives, 
Panel Report, 30 July 2010 

First  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Clean  Sky  Joint  Undertaking,  Panel  Report,  15 
December 2010 

First  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Fuel  Cells  and  Hydrogen  Joint  Undertaking,  Expert 
Group Report, 13 April 2011 

First  Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Innovative  Medicines  Initiative  Joint  Undertaking, 
Panel Report, 20 December 2010 

(24) 

IMI JU Annual Activity Report 2010 

(25) 

IMI JU Annual Implementation Plan 2010 

(26) 

IMI JU Scientific Research Agenda 2008 

(27) 

(28) 

Joint  Technology  Initiatives:  Public-Private  Partnerships  in  EU  research,  brochure, 
2007,  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation, 
ISBN: 978-92-79-06176-9 

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  "First  Interim 
Evaluation of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC Joint Technology Initiatives", COM(2010) 
752 final, Brussels, 16.12.2010 

EN 

121 

   EN