Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[**Avis juridique important**](../../../editorial/legal_notice.htm)

*|*

# 91998E1593

**WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1593/98 by Ursula STENZEL to the Commission. Research programmes** 
  
*Official Journal C 050 , 22/02/1999 P. 0052*

  

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1593/98

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Research programmes

What criteria are used in the selection of experts responsible for deciding on the award of research funds? Is any balance between the Member States observed in making this selection?

Can the Commission say how many experts, and which ones precisely, were involved in the award of funds to Brite-Euram in 1996?

Can the Commission rule out the possibility that some countries were disproportionately under-represented, or not represented at all, and that this had any effect on the award of funds?

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 1998)

The primary criteria for choosing experts to evaluate proposals submitted to European Community research and technological development (RTD) programmes are:

- competence and experience appropriate to the area under consideration;

- an appropriate balance of backgrounds (e.g. industrial, academic, users);

- absence of links with the consortia submitting the proposals examined;

- absence of bias either for or against any particular proposal or proposing team.

Experts are chosen from as broad a geographical base as possible, mainly from within the Member States and third countries associated with the framework programme. Experts from third countries are also chosen if their particular skills are needed. As far as possible, the Commission avoids using experts to evaluate a proposal who come from the same country as the proposal coordinator. In addition, experts are regularly replaced to guard against the formation of "clubs" of regular evaluators.

The numbers and backgrounds of the expert evaluators used in 1996 by the industrial and materials technologies (Brite-Euram III) programme were as follows:

>TABLE>

Because of problems with the availability of experts during the evaluation sessions, it is not always possible to maintain the planned geographical spread. It is clear from the results of evaluation sessions, though, that the proportion of experts from any particular country in the evaluation panels has never had any effect on the rating of proposals from that country.

[Top](#document1)