Memorandum of Understanding between the Research Executive ... · Memorandum of Understanding between the Research Executive Agency and DG Research and Innovation, DG Education and

Memorandum of Understanding between the Research Executive Agency and DG Research and Innovation, DG Education and Culture, DG Enterprise and Industry, DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology, DG Agriculture and Rural Development - Modalities and Procedures of Interaction Page 1 / 34 Document Final Version dated 30/11/2015

Memorandum of Understanding between the Research Executive Agency and DG Research and Innovation, DG Education

and Culture, DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology, DG

Agriculture and Rural Development, DG Internal Market, Industry,

Entrepreneurship and SMEs, DG Migration and Home Affairs

Modalities and Procedures of Interaction

Ref. Ares(2016)664704 - 08/02/2016


0. INTRODUCTION

This document stems from Article 7 of the Instrument of Delegation of the Research Executive Agency (the Agency) and supplements its provisions by specifying the modalities and procedures of interaction between the Agency and DG Research and Innovation (RTD), DG Education and Culture (EAC), DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology (CNECT), DG Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI), DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW) and DG Migration and Home Affairs (HOME). This document does not replicate provisions already described in the Instrument of Delegation or any other legal documents that regulate the functioning of the Agency.

In accordance with the above statements, this Memorandum of Understanding is structured as follows:

• Part I – General provisions

• Part II – Specific provisions for the implementation of Horizon 2020 and FP7.

The administrative and logistical support services provided by REA are regulated by the Rules for the Administrative and Logistical Support Services provided by the REA for Horizon 2020 and Certain Other Programmes.

It is commonly understood and accepted that not all relations between the parent DGs and the Agency can be settled by formal, pre-set rules. Both the Commission and the Agency will strive to solve any arising issues in accordance with the principle of loyal cooperation in the interests of the Union.

This document replaces the previous MoU version signed on 4 September 2014 (Ares(2014)2895630).

http://intranet-rea.rea.cec.eu.int/sites/rea/about/governance/Documents/Rules%20for%20Support%20Services.pdf

http://intranet-rea.rea.cec.eu.int/sites/rea/about/governance/Documents/Rules%20for%20Support%20Services.pdf


Table of Contents 0. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 2

PART I – GENERAL PROVISIONS ......................................................................................................... 6

1. MEETINGS BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND THE PARENT DGS............................................... 7 1.1. Steering Committee meetings.................................................................................................................. 7 1.2. Parent DG’s management meetings......................................................................................................... 7 1.3. Meetings related to programmes/activities .............................................................................................. 7

2. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................... 7 2.1. Budgetary and financial issues ............................................................................................................... 7

2.1.1. Annual budgetary procedure.......................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2. Union financial contribution.......................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3. Waiver of recovery of entitlements and enforcement of recoveries .............................................. 8

2.1.3.1 Waiving of recovery orders where the amount is greater or equal to € 1,000,000 or where it is greater or equal to € 100,000, where this represents 25% or more of the established amount receivable.................................................................................. 8

2.1.3.2 Waiving of recovery orders for reason of proportionality under the thresholds mentioned in 2.1.3.1 ........................................................................................................... 8

2.1.3.3 Adoption of enforceable recovery orders according to Article 299 of the TFEU............... 8 2.1.4 The recovery of funds through judicial proceedings........................................................................ 9

2.2. Human resources.................................................................................................................................... 9 2.3. Legal review under Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003............................................... 9 2.4. “Code of Good Administrative Behaviour” complaints....................................................................... 10 2.5. IT governance and resources................................................................................................................ 10 2.6. Housing ................................................................................................................................................ 10 2.7. Security and Business Continuity policy, management of and access to documents ........................... 10

2.7.1. Security and Business Continuity policy ..................................................................................... 10 2.7.2. Management of and access to documents .................................................................................... 11 2.7.3 Data Protection ............................................................................................................................ 11

3. COOPERATION BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND THE PARENT DGS IN RELATION WITH OTHER ACTORS AND INSTITUTIONS....................................................... 12

3.1. The Agency, its parent DGs and services of the Commission ............................................................. 12 3.1.1. Designated Contact Points ........................................................................................................... 12 3.1.2. The Legal Service of the Commission......................................................................................... 12 3.1.3. The Internal Audit Service of the Commission............................................................................ 12

3.2. The Agency, its parent DGs and institutions, bodies and offices of the Union.................................... 12 3.2.1. The European Parliament............................................................................................................. 12 3.2.2. The European Court of Auditors.................................................................................................. 12 3.2.3. The European Ombudsman ......................................................................................................... 13 3.2.4 The European Data Protection Supervisor................................................................................... 13 3.2.5 The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) ................................................................................... 13

4. PLANNING AND REPORTING .......................................................................................................... 14 4.1. Annual Work Programme .................................................................................................................... 14 4.2. Interim reporting to the parent DGs and the Steering Committee........................................................ 14 4.3. Annual Activity Report ........................................................................................................................ 14 4.4. General provision of data and information........................................................................................... 14

5. SUPERVISION AND EVALUATIONS ............................................................................................... 15 5.1. Supervision........................................................................................................................................... 15

5.1.1 Avoiding gaps or duplication of tasks by means of coordination between the Commission and the Agency ....................................................................................................... 15

5.1.2 Appropriate monitoring of the activities...................................................................................... 15 5.1.3 Analysis of information ............................................................................................................... 16 5.1.4 Reporting on the supervision ....................................................................................................... 16 5.1.5 Review of supervision ................................................................................................................. 16

5.2. Evaluations........................................................................................................................................... 16


PART II – SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HORIZON 2020 AND THE LEGACY OF FP7 .......................................................................................................... 17

PART II(A) – HORIZON 2020.................................................................................................................. 18

1. COORDINATION BETWEEN RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FAMILY DGS AND THE AGENCY...................................................................................................................................... 18

1.1. Horizon 2020 management coordination meetings .............................................................................. 18 1.2. Day to day Horizon 2020 coordination ................................................................................................ 18

1.2.1. Agency and Research and Innovation DGs’ relevant services..................................................... 18 1.2.2. Agency and Research and Innovation DGs’ budget services ...................................................... 18 1.2.3. Secretariat of the different configurations of the Horizon 2020 Programme Committee,

participation of the Agency in Programme Committee meetings ................................................ 18 1.2.4. The Common Support Centre (CSC) for Horizon 2020 .............................................................. 18 1.2.5. The Horizon 2020 IT applications suite....................................................................................... 19

2. CALL FOR PROPOSALS ................................................................................................................... 19

3. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS ...................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Selecting, contracting and briefing expert evaluators and observers.................................................... 19

3.1.1 Selection of expert evaluators and observers ............................................................................... 19 3.1.2 Contracting expert evaluators and observers ............................................................................... 20 3.1.3 Briefing of expert evaluators and observers ................................................................................ 20 3.1.4 Observers report........................................................................................................................... 20

3.2 Admissibility and Eligibility Review Committee and Evaluation Review Committee........................ 20 3.2.1 Admissibility and Eligibility Review Committee ........................................................................ 20 3.2.2 Evaluation Review Committee .................................................................................................... 20

3.3 The Ethics Review ............................................................................................................................... 21 3.3.1 Selection and briefing of ethics experts ....................................................................................... 21 3.3.2 Ethics review ............................................................................................................................... 21 3.3.3 Ethics checks and audits during the Grant Management ............................................................. 21

3.4 Security scrutiny................................................................................................................................... 22 3.5 Consultation of the Commission services by Agencies on the main list and reserve list ..................... 22

3.5.1 Consultation on the draft main lists ............................................................................................. 22 3.5.2 Consultation on the use of the reserve list ................................................................................... 23 3.5.3 Double funding ............................................................................................................................ 23

3.6 Providing data and information .............................................................................................................. 23

4. SELECTION PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................... 23 4.1 Selection and rejection procedure ........................................................................................................ 23 4.2 Providing data and information............................................................................................................ 24 4.3 Communication to beneficiaries........................................................................................................... 24

4.3.1. After experts evaluation............................................................................................................... 24 4.3.2. After ethics evaluation ................................................................................................................. 24 4.3.3. Security scrutiny .......................................................................................................................... 24

5. IMPLEMENTATION OF INDIRECT ACTIONS ............................................................................ 25 5.1 Monitors ............................................................................................................................................... 25 5.2 Providing data and information............................................................................................................ 25 5.3 Feedback of results into policy making as part of the strategy for the dissemination and

exploitation of Horizon 2020 research results...................................................................................... 25 5.4 Participant Guarantee Fund waiver of entitlements ............................................................................. 28 5.5 Ex-post audits on beneficiaries............................................................................................................. 28

6. OTHER ISSUES ................................................................................................................................... 28 6.1 Cross-cutting issues ................................................................................................................................ 28

6.1.1 Calls including more than one budget line (e.g. Focus Areas)....................................................... 28 6.2 Contractual Public-Private Partnerships ................................................................................................. 29

7. EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION..................................................................................................... 29 7.1 National Contact Points........................................................................................................................ 29 7.2 Communication on Horizon 2020 ........................................................................................................ 29

8. PROGRAMME EVALUATION ......................................................................................................... 30


ANNEX – HORIZON 2020 PROGRAMME COMMITTEE CONFIGURATIONS ........................... 31

PART II(B) – FP7 ....................................................................................................................................... 32

1. COORDINATION BETWEEN RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FAMILY DGS AND THE AGENCY...................................................................................................................................... 32

1.1. FP7 management coordination meetings.............................................................................................. 32 1.2. Day to day FP7 legacy coordination .................................................................................................... 32

1.2.1. Agency and Research and Innovation DGs’ relevant services..................................................... 32 1.2.2. Agency and Research and Innovation DGs’ budget services ...................................................... 32

2. LEGAL SUPPORT, BUSINESS PROCESSES, THE IT APPLICATIONS SUITE, PROGRAMME INFORMATION AND DATA, AND PROVISION OF RELEVANT TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................ 32

3. IMPLEMENTATION OF INDIRECT ACTIONS ............................................................................ 32 3.1. Monitors ............................................................................................................................................... 32 3.2. Providing data and information............................................................................................................ 32 3.3. Dissemination, use and exploitation of results ..................................................................................... 32 3.4. Participant Guarantee Fund waiver of entitlements ............................................................................. 33 3.5. Ex-post audits....................................................................................................................................... 33

4. NATIONAL CONTACT POINTS ...................................................................................................... 33

5. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION.................................................................................... 33

6. PROGRAMME EVALUATION ......................................................................................................... 33

SIGNATURES FOR PARTS I AND II(A) OF THE MOU..................................................................... 34


PART I – GENERAL PROVISIONS Part I of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is common to all Executive Agencies and covers issues which are not related to the programmes in the management of which these Executive Agencies are involved. It aims to harmonise the modalities and procedures of interaction between Directorates-General (DGs) and Executive Agencies in circumstances where many DGs must interact with several Executive Agencies and where the latter have several parent DGs. Furthermore, the content of this document may be adapted to reflect the specificities of smaller and less complex Executive Agencies.

This common part is followed by a specific part which covers the specificities of the programmes in the implementation of which the Agency is involved (Part II). In case of conflicting provisions, the modalities and procedures of interaction set out in Part II of this Memorandum of Understanding shall take precedence over those described in Part I for the programmes concerned.


1. MEETINGS BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND THE PARENT DGS Close contacts between the Agency and its parent DGs are essential for achievement of their respective goals. These contacts take place at different levels: through the Steering Committee meetings with the parent DGs, through participation in the parent DGs’ management meetings, through regular programme-specific meetings, and through further contacts at unit and working level.

1.1. Steering Committee meetings The Steering Committee ensures that the work of the Agency is in line with the Agency’s Annual Work Programme. The day-to-day management of the Agency is the task of its Director and the management team.

The Steering Committee meetings are organised at least four times a year. Usually, these meetings are scheduled in late February, May/June, September/October and mid-December. At each meeting the Director reports on key issues relevant to the work of the Agency, among which, on the performance of the Agency against the key performance indicators set out in the Agency’s Annual Work Programme and on the implementation of the administrative budget and any issue that could have a significant negative impact on his/her assurance.

As a general rule, the documents for each Steering Committee meeting should be sent to its members and observers, not later than the deadline established in the rules of procedures of the Steering Committee. In particular, the Director of the Agency must ensure that all documents relevant to the Strategic Planning and Programming (SPP) cycle are presented to the Steering Committee for discussion and later for decision in good time and in accordance with the relevant deadlines.

1.2. Parent DG’s management meetings The Director of the Agency takes part in the weekly Directors’ meetings of DG RTD. He/she is invited to attend the Directors’ meetings of DG EAC, DG CNECT, DG AGRI, DG GROW and DG HOME on an ad-hoc basis.

1.3. Meetings related to programmes/activities Meetings related to the implementation of the tasks entrusted to the Agency are defined in the Memorandum of Understanding which covers the specificities of the programmes in the implementation of which the Agency is involved.

2. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES

2.1. Budgetary and financial issues

In order to enable the Agency to fulfil its accounting, budgetary and financial obligations, the Agency should be invited to take part in its parent DGs’ relevant meetings.

2.1.1. Annual budgetary procedure

The Agency submits its contributions to the annual budgetary procedure of the Commission on the basis of the instructions provided by DG BUDG to:

− DG RTD for the parts that relate to its administrative budget, including the human resources;

− Each parent DG for the parts that relate to their respective operational budgets delegated to the Agency.


2.1.2. Union financial contribution

The Union financial contribution to the administrative budget of the Agency is paid by DG RTD, preferably in three instalments.

2.1.3. Waiver of recovery of entitlements and enforcement of recoveries

In accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of the Instrument of Delegation, the Commission remains responsible for a number of tasks linked to the waiver of entitlements of the Agency or linked to the adoption of an enforced recovery decision. These tasks are inter alia:

− The waiving of recovery orders where the amount is greater or equal to € 1,000,000;

− The waiving of recovery orders where the amount is € 100,000 or more where this represents 25% or more of the established amount receivable;

− The waiving of recovery orders for the reason of proportionality;

− And enforcing recovery through the adoption of a decision that is enforceable within the meaning of Article 299 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

2.1.3.1 Waiving of recovery orders where the amount is greater or equal to € 1,000,000 or where it is greater or equal to € 100,000, where this represents 25% or more of the established amount receivable

Waiving recovery orders for an amount greater or equal to € 1,000,000 or to € 100,000 where this represents 25% or more of the established amount receivable, is subject to a Commission decision. In practice, all the waivers for amounts exceeding € 100,000 are subject to a Commission decision as partial waivers representing 25% or more of the debt rarely occurs and the 25% are difficult to identify.

The Agency prepares the file, including the draft Commission decision, and transmits it to the relevant parent DGs which will process it further. Once the Commission decision is adopted, it is implemented by the Agency.

2.1.3.2 Waiving of recovery orders for reason of proportionality under the thresholds mentioned in 2.1.3.1

Waiving recovery orders for the reason of proportionality for an amount under the threshold mentioned in 2.1.3.1 must be preceded by an inter-service consultation where DG BUDG and the Legal Service (and when appropriate OLAF) are consulted (for amounts exceeding the thresholds under 2.1.3.1 there must be an inter-service consultation before taking the Commission decision in any case). The Agency prepares the file, including all the relevant documents for the inter-service consultation, and transmits it to the relevant parent DG which will process it further. Once the services consulted give their positive opinion on the intended waiver, it is implemented by the Agency.

2.1.3.3 Adoption of enforceable recovery orders according to Article 299 of the TFEU

The adoption of enforceable recovery orders according to Article 299 TFEU is subject to a Commission decision. The Agency prepares the file, including the draft Commission decision, and transmits it to the relevant parent DG which will process it further. Once the Commission Decision is adopted, the enforced recovery is implemented by the Commission services in collaboration with the relevant national authorities.


2.1.4 The recovery of funds through judicial proceedings

The recovery of funds through judicial proceedings is to be decided by the Agency. The agency will seek to obtain an enforcement order before the competent court and will implement the enforcement measures.

In the course of the proceedings, the Agency may consult the Common Legal Support Service (only for Horizon 2020) for the purpose of ensuring coherence across the Research and Innovation family.

For non-Horizon 2020 programmes, the Agency may consult, through its parent DG, the Legal Service and/or DG BUDG for additional information, opinion or instructions regarding any issues arising in the proceedings.

2.2. Human resources The parent DGs are responsible for the selection process of Commission officials to be seconded in executive agencies to occupy positions of responsibility. The parent DGs associate closely the Agency in such process. The parent DGs are also in charge of the career management of the seconded officials; it includes appraisal, promotion, career development, mobility or end of secondment. The parent DGs maintain a close contact with seconded officials by associating them to the work and life of the parent DG.

The Agency is responsible for the recruitment and the career of the other category of staff: Contract Agents and Temporary Agents in the meaning of Article 2(f) of the Conditions of Employment of the Other Servants of the EU. In such cases, the parent DGs support the Agency where appropriate (for example by advertising the Agency's vacancies on their respective intranet or by bringing in their specific expertise on the tasks delegated to the Agency while the Agency set up the selection panels.

The staff of the Agency will have access to the specific trainings organised by the parent DGs for the programmes delegated to the Agency.

Human resources management in the Agency should be aligned as much as possible with HR management practices in the parent DGs. The HR community in the parent DGs works in close collaboration with HR colleagues in the Agency.

More generally, as far as human resources are concerned, the role and the cooperation between parent DGs and the Agency are described in the Guidelines for the establishment and operation of executive agencies and particularly the section on human resources.

2.3. Legal review under Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 Complaints against an Agency's decision lodged under Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 are processed by the relevant parent DG1 within the two months deadline to take a decision, after hearing the arguments adduced by the complainant and those by the Executive Agency. As soon as possible after the receipt of the complaint, the parent DG forwards the complaint and any supporting documents to the Agency and sets a time limit for the Agency’s submission of arguments and supporting documents, taking into account the complexity of the case and the tight timeframe to be respected.

1 Each DG responsible for the policy field (Directorates/Units in charge of the delegated activities)

related to the complaint has to handle the file


On the basis of the relevant documents and taking into account the submission by the Agency, the relevant parent DG prepares a draft answer to the complainant regarding complaints on programmes delegated to the Executive Agency. In case of complaints related to Horizon 2020, the relevant parent DGs prepares the draft answer with the assistance of the Common Legal Support Service of the Common Support Centre.

The draft answer examines the legality of the Agency’s decision in light of the available documents. If additional documents are necessary for the response, the relevant parent DG will request the Agency or the complainant to provide them.

Following the consultation of the Legal Service and other relevant services, the relevant parent DG prepares and handles the draft response, which has to be adopted as a Commission Decision. When the Commission Decision is finally adopted, the relevant parent DG replies on the Commission's behalf and informs the Agency.

2.4. “Code of Good Administrative Behaviour” complaints Complaints against the Agency concerning a breach of the “Code of Good Administrative Behaviour” may be lodged directly with the Secretariat-General. The Secretariat-General forwards the complaint directly to the Agency, which replies to the complainant within 2 months. The complainant may apply to the Secretary-General to review the outcome of the complaint within one month after receiving the reply from the Agency. If additional documents are necessary for the response, the Secretary-General requests the Agency or the complainant to provide them. The Agency must inform the relevant parent DGs of all the correspondence related to the complaint.

2.5. IT governance and resources The Informatics Resources Manager of the parent DGs must be consulted on the Agency’s IT strategy documents developed in compliance with the standards, architecture, development methodologies, IT security, and specific IT requirements for the delegated programmes and governance of the Commission and its parent DGs.

In order to enable the Agency to fulfil its IT obligations, the Agency is invited to take part in its parent DGs’ (and Commission’s) relevant meetings.

Further issues related to IT governance2 and resources are defined in the Memorandum of Understanding which covers the specificities of the programmes in the implementation of which the Agency is involved.

2.6. Housing In accordance with the Communication to the Commission on the delegation of the management of the 2014-2020 programmes to Executive Agencies of September 2013, OIB will need to consider housing the Agency in accordance with the Commission's middle-term and long-term real estate planning.

2.7. Security and Business Continuity policy, management of and access to documents

2.7.1. Security and Business Continuity policy

The Agency establishes security related procedures and processes, including Business Continuity Planning, in accordance with the Internal Control Standards and the security 2 For Horizon 2020: the involvement of the agency is established through the CSC and its operating

rules.


standards set by DG HR and the SG. The lead parent DG provides punctual assistance when needed to the Agencies as well as information about any changes that might affect them. To that end, the Agency has access to all relevant tools and services needed to be in full compliance with the Commission rules.

The Agency’s Local Security Officer (LSO), Local Information Security Officer (LISO) and Business Continuity Correspondent take part in the relevant meetings of DG HR and SG in order to ensure a high level of security and compliance with rules at the level of the Commission.

In the case of activation of the Business Continuity Plan either by the Agency, or by the parent DGs or by both of them, the Agency and the parent DGs inform each other and coordinate their activities. Furthermore, the Agency and the parent DGs will cooperate where necessary, especially in relation to shared buildings and IT services.

2.7.2. Management of and access to documents

The Agency’s Document Management Officer is a member of the Inter-service Group of Documents Management Officers coordinated by the Secretariat-General.

The Access to Documents Coordinator is a member of the Access to Documents Coordinators Network coordinated by the Secretariat-General.

Following the delegation of new activities to the Agency, the requests for access to documents addressed either to the Agency or to its parent DGs may raise doubts about the origin or the location of the document. In such cases the parent DGs3 and the Agency consult each other and by common agreement decide whether the parent DGs or the Agency is the main author (or in case of doubts about the location of the document – which of them is in possession of it) and handle the request accordingly. If the requested document contains information that originates from both the Agency and its parent DGs, the Agency and its parent DGs by common agreement decide whether the parent DGs or the Agency is responsible to register and handle the request. In such case, the lead service handling the request will prepare the reply in cooperation with the other service.

2.7.3 Data Protection

The Agency appoints a Data Protection Officer (DPO), who is in charge of implementing the Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Agency4. The Agency informs the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of the appointment of the Agency's DPO.

The Agency does not appoint a Data Protection Co-ordinator (DPC); the duties of the DPC are performed by the Agency's DPO, who operates in cooperation with the EDPS.5 The DPO of the Agency and the DPC of the parent DGs establish regular contacts in order to exchange good practices in implementing the Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

3 For Horizon 2020, together with the Common Support Centre 4 OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1 5 For the business processes of Horizon 2020, the notifications and possible requests for prior-checking

by the EDPS are coordinated with the Common Support Centre


3. COOPERATION BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND THE PARENT DGS IN RELATION WITH OTHER ACTORS AND INSTITUTIONS

3.1. The Agency, its parent DGs and services of the Commission The parent DGs are responsible for all contacts and interactions with the Cabinet(s) and with the services of the Commission with the exception of specific cases as established in the present document. However, the Agency may interact on a day-to-day basis directly with the horizontal services of the Commission on matters relating to its administration.

3.1.1. Designated Contact Points

Each parent DG shall nominate a contact point (person, unit, functional mailbox,…) responsible for coordinating within the DG and liaising with the Agency in relation to horizontal and Agency-wide issues (e.g. Agency's Work Programme, Annual Activity Report, Steering Committee). This contact point shall provide support to the Steering Committee where appropriate.

3.1.2. The Legal Service of the Commission

The Legal Service of the Commission does not represent the Agency before a national court or the Court of Justice of the European Union. If however, the legal defence of the Agency's position involves issues of fundamental importance in terms of Union law and/or issues of fundamental importance in terms of interests of the Commission or the Union, then the Legal Service of the Commission can, via the relevant parent DGs, advise the Agency's Director on the position to defend6.

Where for its day-to-day operations the Agency has legal questions which it cannot solve, it may refer the questions to its parent DGs7 which in turn will seek the advice of the Legal Service of the Commission if need be.

3.1.3. The Internal Audit Service of the Commission

The Internal Audit Service of the Commission ensures the audit capability of the Agency.

3.2. The Agency, its parent DGs and institutions, bodies and offices of the Union The parent DGs are responsible for all contacts and interactions with institutions, bodies and offices of the Union with the exception of specific cases as established in the present document.

3.2.1. The European Parliament

The Commission replies to all type of questions put forward by the European Parliament or by its Members. Therefore, any question related to the Agency, regardless of whether it concerns the management of the administrative or operational appropriations, is replied by the Commissioner responsible for the activity of the Agency to which the question relates. To that end the Director of the Agency sends all the relevant information to the concerned parent DGs and keeps the Steering Committee of the Agency informed.

3.2.2. The European Court of Auditors

For the purposes of audits performed on the operational appropriations delegated to the Agency, the parent DGs are the contact point of the European Court of Auditors (ECA). 6 As regards the implementation of court litigation for Horizon 2020 and the legacy of FP7, assistance

will be provided by the CSC 7 For Horizon 2020 questions: directly to the CLSS


The parent DGs keep the Agency informed of any planned audit and related correspondence. The Agency ensures the co-operation with the ECA, including the requested preparation of audit visits. In the cases where ECA addresses parent DGs directly, the concerned parent DGs ensure the cooperation with the ECA.

For the purposes of audits performed on the administrative appropriations, the Agency is the contact point of the ECA. The Agency keeps the parent DGs informed on any substantial issues raised by the ECA during the audit.

3.2.3. The European Ombudsman

Complaints of maladministration by the Agency brought before the European Ombudsman are managed according to the Commission Guidelines for the establishment and operation of the Executive Agencies8, laying down the relations between the parent DG(s), other Commission Services and the Agencies and according to the Vademecum for Handling Ombudsman Inquiries.

In particular, upon the receipt of the complaint from the European Ombudsman, the Agency shall immediately send the Ombudsman’s letter to the relevant parent DG(s) and to the Common Legal Support Service (for Horizon 2020) accompanied by any relevant information. Additionally, the members of the Steering Committee and the observers shall be equally notified.

If the issue relates to an act coming under the management of the operational appropriations, the relevant parent DGs must consult the SG, the Legal Service, and in any case with a financial impact, DG BUDG and any other DG concerned, and obtain the agreement of the responsible Commissioner in accordance with the relevant arrangements. For Horizon 2020, this consultation is launched once there is agreement between the Common Legal Support Service, the parent DG and the Agency on the draft reply of the latter. After receiving the approval of the parent DGs on the draft final reply, the Director replies to the Ombudsman on the Agency’s behalf.

The same procedure applies if the parent DGs consider that the referral to the Ombudsman of a case involving management of the administrative appropriations or personnel management raises a question of general interest. After consulting the SG and, in case of doubt, the Members of the Commission responsible, the parent DG informs the agency of its decision. If the question only concerns the Agency, the Director replies to the Ombudsman on the Agency’s behalf after receiving the approval of the Steering Committee.

3.2.4 The European Data Protection Supervisor

The Data Protection Officer of the Agency ensures the interface and cooperates with the European Data Protection Supervisor, and notifies relevant processing operations. The Data Protection Officer of the Agency is a member of the Data Protection Officers’ Network.

3.2.5 The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)

The parent DGs inform the Agency about on-going OLAF investigations of beneficiaries that may also be beneficiaries of grants/contracts managed by the Agency. The Agency informs the parent DGs of any such cases.

8 Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of Executive Agencies Financed from the Union

Budget. (Link to NMM Wiki Guidelines Establishment and Operation EAs)

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/NMM/Executive+Agencies+-+Procedural+and+legal+documents


The Agency and OLAF have direct contacts through designated contact points regarding any investigations. The Agency appoints contact points for internal and external investigations and keeps the parent DGs informed on any substantial issue raised with OLAF during its investigations.

4. PLANNING AND REPORTING

4.1. Annual Work Programme The Agency draws up its Annual Work Programme for year n on the basis of the instructions provided by the Secretariat-General during the autumn of the previous year, taking into consideration the specific indicators pertaining to Horizon 2020 and FP7 in the implementation of which the Agency is involved.

Following the endorsement by the Steering Committee, the Agency sends to the designated contact point in DG RTD the draft Annual Work Programme. On that basis, DG RTD will launch the procedure in order to receive the Commission’s approval of the draft Annual Work Programme of the Agency.

DG RTD sends the final version of the Annual Work Programme of the Agency to the Secretariat-General and DG BUDG functional mailbox. The Agency shall upload its annual work programme (draft/final) in the dedicated collaborative workspace in accordance with the Annual Management Plan instructions.

4.2. Interim reporting to the parent DGs and the Steering Committee

Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 19(3) of the Instrument of Delegation of the Agency, the parent DGs avoid introducing monitoring requirements that impose on the Agency unreasonable reporting obligations.

The Agency submits to the parent DGs and the Steering Committee a report on the performance of the tasks assigned to the Agency covering an interim period (usually the first six months of the year). The report contains the main key performance indicators mentioned in the Annual Work Programme of the Agency. The report also includes all information needed by the parent DGs for the reporting to their Commissioners.

4.3. Annual Activity Report

The Agency draws up its Annual Activity Report for year n on the basis of the instructions provided by Secretariat-General and DG BUDG in the autumn of year n and in cooperation with the Commission's departments of the same spending area.

The Annual Activity Report (AAR) of the Agency, the accompanying declarations and any comments made by the Steering Committee are submitted to the central services of the Commission .The Commission sends all annual activity reports to the European Court of Auditors, the European Parliament and the Council.

4.4. General provision of data and information The Agency is responsible for ensuring the quality of data and information recorded in the information systems that the Agency uses, in particular the data and information related to the programmes in the implementation of which the Agency is involved.


5. SUPERVISION AND EVALUATIONS

5.1. Supervision Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 requires the Commission to supervise the implementation of the programmes entrusted to executive agencies. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the Instrument of Delegation of the Agency, the parent DGs are required to define a supervision strategy aiming at:

− avoiding gaps or duplication of tasks between the Commission and the Agency;

− ensuring an appropriate monitoring of the activities of the Agency.

In case of serious concerns with respect to the operations of the Agency and if it is necessary, the parent DG(s) can make on-the-spot checks in the Agency in accordance with Article 21(1) of the Delegation Act.

5.1.1 Avoiding gaps or duplication of tasks by means of coordination between the Commission and the Agency

The continuous coordination between the Commission9 and the Agency of the procedures, tools and working arrangements ensures coherence and complementarities and helps to avoid gaps in responsibilities or duplication of efforts.

To achieve this goal, the present document establishes a number of rules for interactions on horizontal issues that should take place at various levels between Agency's services and their Commission's counterparts.

In addition, regular contacts take place between the Agency and the parent DGs’ services responsible for the programmes in the implementation of which the Agency is involved. These contacts take the form of coordination meetings at Directors level, HoD/HoU level and contacts at working level.

These coordination arrangements are further detailed in the programme-specific Memorandum of Understanding.

5.1.2 Appropriate monitoring of the activities

The appropriate monitoring of the activities of the Agency is achieved by the means of participation of the parent DGs in the Steering Committee of the Agency. The Agency’s Director ensures that the members and observers of the Steering Committee receive all relevant information and reliable control results needed for the appropriate fulfilment of their mandates. The Steering Committee members and observers are also supported by their own DG’s services.

The annual planning and reporting cycle forms the basis of the monitoring of the Agency’s activities by the Steering Committee. In particular, the Annual Work Programme contains an obligation of assessment of risks and risk exposure, and provides a number of key performance indicators. These constitute the benchmark against which the performance of the Agency is monitored through its interim reporting and Annual Activity Report as set out under section 4 of this document. It is complemented by other relevant sources of information such as the reports from the Discharge Authority, ECA, IAS and OLAF.

9 For Horizon 2020 in particular the Common Support Centre


5.1.3 Analysis of information

The parent DGs analyse the information received through their supervision tools and present synthesised information as background to the members and observers of the Steering Committee. The members and observers of the Steering Committee inform their respective responsible parent DG’s Authorising Officer by Delegation (AOD) and Internal Control Coordinator (ICC) of any issue they find during their review of the control results reported by the Agency that may have a bearing on the Agency’s and/or the parent DG’s assurance building. If a critical risk arises or control weakness, the parent DG will take appropriate measures, e.g. review of documents or on-the-spot controls.

5.1.4 Reporting on the supervision

The parent DGs report on their supervision of the Agency in their Annual Activity Reports and in other reports. This reporting contains key performance indicators as well as qualitative assessments.

5.1.5 Review of supervision

The effectiveness and efficiency of the supervision arrangements is reviewed in the context of the triennial external evaluation of the Agency or more frequently if critical risks are identified by the means of the monitoring of activities.

5.2. Evaluations The Agency contributes to the evaluations of the programmes in the implementation of which it is involved. These are further described in the MoU that covers the Operational Activities.

The Agency contributes to the triennial external evaluations referred to in Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003. Under the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework, two external evaluations will take place covering respectively the period from mid-2012 to mid-2015 and from mid-2015 to mid-2018.

These evaluations will be organised by DG RTD in close cooperation with the other parent DGs and the Agency in defining the terms of reference of the external evaluations. The parent DGs and the Agency will be part of the steering group that will oversee the work of the contractors performing the external evaluation.


PART II – SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HORIZON 2020 AND THE

LEGACY OF FP7

Part II of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) does not replicate provisions already described in the Agency’s Instrument of Delegation or any other documents that regulate the functioning of the Agency and the implementation of the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) and Horizon 2020. All relevant documents can be found on the Horizon 2020 Participant Portal10 and/or on the Funding Procedures Guide (GoFund Wiki)11.

The aim is to determine the interactions between the Agency and the Research and Innovation parent DGs rather than define the business process for each part of the natural lifecycle of a research specific programme. This document focuses inter alia on the interactions related to the preparation of the Horizon 2020 work programme, the publication of calls for proposals, the submission of proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures, grant management, etc.

Common business processes are defined by the Commission Common Support Centre (CSC) following its operating rules12. This document will be adapted as appropriate in consistency with future development and changes in the relevant legal and procedural framework.

On the FP7, this Part II of the MoU includes specific provisions for the phasing out of the Framework Programme. Part II of the Memorandum of Understanding is structured as follows:

• Part II(A) – Horizon 2020

• Part II(B) – FP7

10 Horizon 2020 Participant Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/home.html 11 GoFund Wiki :https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/iknowplus/H2020+Documentation 12 C(2014)2656, Commission Decision of 14.04.2014 on the operating rules of the Common Support

Centre for Horizon 2020, the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/display/iknowplus/H2020+Documentation;jsessionid=C5856D454D4978AE4E8D3D4DEFDC639A?ticket=ST-7113369-L8x1zuGcUHjL1lqUqLP4zueOjQC7C6PJuK9JtwAXK3kwuCNTMN07UzKkNMVzkk7hSBHyFg9X5vQaL31jN8zm8go-PHslUMVSXYClQXj3E1SfAO-NxjBEzWN11a8yKqPkzb3NBvLSbsHVsEFb5cP6F8TtS9W


PART II(A) – HORIZON 2020

1. COORDINATION BETWEEN RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FAMILY DGS AND THE AGENCY

1.1. Horizon 2020 management coordination meetings

Regular operational coordination meetings, at management level, will be organised between the relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs and the Agency to ensure a proper implementation of the parts of Horizon 2020 delegated to the Agency.

1.2. Day to day Horizon 2020 coordination

1.2.1. Agency and Research and Innovation DGs’ relevant services

The Agency’s relevant units maintain regular contacts with their counter parts in the relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs to ensure a permanent exchange of information and coordination in line with their respective roles in the implementation of Horizon 2020.

1.2.2. Agency and Research and Innovation DGs’ budget services

The Agency’s budget unit maintains regular contacts with their counter parts in the relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs to ensure an optimal planning and implementation of the Horizon 2020 budget.

1.2.3. Secretariat of the different configurations of the Horizon 2020 Programme Committee, participation of the Agency in Programme Committee meetings

In accordance with Article 5 of the Instrument of Delegation, the Commission is the sole interface with the Programme Committee defined in Article 10 of the Horizon 2020 Specific Programme. There are 14 configurations of the Horizon 2020 Programme Committee which are defined in Annex V of the Horizon 2020 Specific Programme. For each configuration, a relevant Research and Innovation parent DG is responsible for the Secretariat. The Secretariats relevant to the work of the Agency are listed in the Annex of this document.

The Agency representatives may be invited to attend and contribute to the meetings of the relevant configurations of the Programme Committee as appropriate. In particular, the Agency will participate and report on the progress made in the programme implementation tasks delegated to it.

1.2.4. The Common Support Centre (CSC) for Horizon 2020

The Horizon 2020 Common Support Centre (CSC) provides services to the Agency in accordance with its operating rules13. These services cover legal support, business processes, the Horizon 2020 IT applications suite, programme information and data, and ex-post audits and provision of relevant training. Where appropriate, reference will be made in this document to the specific role to be played by the CSC.

The Director of the Agency is a member of the CSC Executive Committee in charge to prepare and implement the decisions of the CSC Governing Board.

13 C(2014)2656, Commission Decision of 14.04.2014 on the operating rules of the Common Support

Centre for Horizon 2020, the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)


Notifications to the European Data Protection Supervisor for Horizon 2020 common processes are coordinated by the CSC.

1.2.5. The Horizon 2020 IT applications suite

For its daily operations for the implementation of Horizon 2020, the Agency uses the Horizon 2020 IT applications suite. The related IT and business documentation is made available to the Agency through the Funding Procedures Guide (GoFund Wiki) which also provides information on the business processes and corresponding training courses organised by the CSC.

2. CALL FOR PROPOSALS The relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs, under the lead of DG RTD, are responsible for the preparation of the Horizon 2020 work programmes which are adopted by the Commission. The Agency, at the request of the Commission, will contribute to the preparatory work of the Horizon 2020 work programmes on issues regarding the implementation aspects. A list of activities not delegated to an Agency as well as the delegated activities will be established in the context of the Horizon 2020 work programme.

The detailed planning of the preparation and publication of the calls covered by the Horizon 2020 work programmes is prepared one year in advance. This exercise is steered by DG RTD with the assistance of REA’s administrative and logistical support services in particular regarding the allocation of a time slot of the evaluation platform. The Agency takes part in the planning exercise in accordance with the Rules of Administrative and Logistical Support provided by REA.

The relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs must reserve the operational budget that will be transferred to the REA to cover the costs of the expert evaluators, according to the Horizon 2020 Work Programme.

3. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

3.1 Selecting, contracting and briefing expert evaluators and observers

3.1.1 Selection of expert evaluators and observers

The general criteria for the selection of expert evaluators and observers are defined in the Horizon 2020 Vademecum14. Specific related call criteria for the selection of expert evaluators and observers may be communicated by the relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs to the Agency before the launch of the call for proposals. The relevant Research and Innovation parent DG15 informs the Agency in case that specific expertise is required16.

In accordance with the general and call specific criteria, if any, for the selection of evaluation expert evaluators and observers as defined by the relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs, the Agency draws a draft pool of expert evaluators and observers. The Agency sends the above-mentioned draft pool to the relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs for consultation before the approval of the final list, unless the latter requests not be consulted. The relevant Research and Innovation parent DG has 14 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 2, Experts 15 Each DG responsible for the policy field (Directorates/Units in charge of the delegated activities) 16 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 4, Grant Proposals


five working days to respond to the Agency with a reasoned recommendation in line with the evaluation expert selection criteria and taking into account specific expertise that might be required. If the relevant Research and Innovation parent DG does not respond within five days, the Agency adopts the final pool of expert evaluators and observers and informs the REA support services.

3.1.2 Contracting expert evaluators and observers

The REA support services processes the expert contracts on the basis of the adopted pool and in accordance with the provisions of the Rules for Administrative and Logistical Support Services, adopted by the REA Steering Committee. The REA also processes the ensuing payments.

3.1.3 Briefing of expert evaluators and observers

The standard briefing material is made available on the GoFund Wiki and on the Participant Portal. The briefing material will be comprehensive, including a set of common documents and presentations and any other additional call-specific material. The relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs may contribute to the briefing of experts on policy issues and may attend the panel sessions17.

3.1.4 Observers report

The Agency may publish a summary of the observers report according to the Horizon 2020 Vademecum18.

3.2 Admissibility and Eligibility Review Committee and Evaluation Review Committee

3.2.1 Admissibility and Eligibility Review Committee

Following a complaint by an applicant or in non-clear cases during the admissibility and eligibility check, the Call Coordinator/Project Officer of the Agency convenes the Admissibility and Eligibility Review Committee19.

For the performance of its work, the Admissibility and Eligibility Review Committee may request the advice of the Common Legal Support Service (CLSS), via the functional mailbox RTD ADMISSIBILITY ELIGIBILITY, through the central legal team of the REA.

The deviation by the RAO from the opinion of the Admissibility and Eligibility Review Committee as well as the Communication to beneficiaries with respect to the status of their proposal after the admissibility and eligibility check, are regulated by the Horizon 2020 Vademecum20.

3.2.2 Evaluation Review Committee

In case an applicant considers that the evaluation of his/her proposal was not carried out in accordance with the procedural rules, he/she may file a complaint requesting an evaluation review. In this case the Evaluation Review Committee is set up and convened in line with the Horizon 2020 Vademecum. The nomination of members from the 17 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 4, Grant Proposals 18 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 4, Grant Proposals 19 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 4, Grant Proposals 20 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 4, Grant Proposals


relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs is recommended. The appointment of the members of the committee is done by the Director of the Agency. Where more than one relevant research and innovation parent DGs are involved, the formal appointment is preceded by an agreement at working level.

The Evaluation Review Committee may request the advice of the Redress Office and the legal support of the CLSS, through the central legal team of the REA, regarding the issues related to its work, according to the Horizon 2020 Vademecum.

Further detailed procedures for the work of the Evaluation Review Committee, including cases of disagreement between the Committee and the RAO are defined in the Horizon 2020 Vademecum21.

3.3 The Ethics Review

3.3.1 Selection and briefing of ethics experts

The list of ethics experts is drawn up and published annually on the Funding Procedural Guide (GoFund Wiki) by DG RTD Ethics Department. Ethics experts must be chosen from the above-mentioned list. The standard material for the briefing of the ethics experts is provided by DG RTD Ethics Department. The Agency must consult the DG RTD Ethics Department and the relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs on the specific content of the briefing material for certain calls which are more likely to raise ethical concerns and invites, if necessary, them to take party in the briefing of ethics experts, according to the rules of the Horizon 2020 Vademecum22.

3.3.2 Ethics review

The Agency carries out the ethics pre-screening and the screening of proposals, according to Horizon 2020 Vademecum23.

If an ethic assessment is necessary, further to the screening, the Agency will request the Ethics Department of DG RTD to perform it. In exceptional cases, such an assessment may also be carried out at the request of the Commission services or the Agency notably via the Horizon 2020 SEP system.

In case of complaints on ethics, the Agency convenes a committee according to the relevant provisions provided in the Horizon 2020 Vademecum.

3.3.3 Ethics checks and audits during the Grant Management

When necessary, following the initiative of DG RTD Ethics Department or the appropriate notification by the ethics review experts and the operational services of the Agency and in close cooperation with the relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs, the ethics checks and audits are organised by DG RTD Ethics Department and, when relevant, with the cooperation and involvement of the Agency.

During the project duration if, significant research integrity issues occur which require an in depth assessment by ethics experts, DG RTD Ethics Department may convene an expert panel to review the cases of alleged research misconduct.

21 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 10, Complaints 22 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 4, Grant proposals 23 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 4, Grant proposals


3.4 Security scrutiny The Agency refers proposals that must undergo the security scrutiny to DG HOME’s service in charge of the “Security Scrutiny Group”24.

This procedure is managed directly by DG HOME with the support of the Agency’s unit in charge of “Safeguarding Secure Society”.

The above-mentioned service of DG HOME informs the Agency of the recommendations issued by the “Security Scrutiny Group”. The Agency has to implement the Commission Decision.

3.5 Consultation of the Commission services by Agencies on the main list and reserve list

3.5.1 Consultation on the draft main lists25

The Agency shall consult the relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs on the draft main lists, in order to decide on the use of any budget leftover and whether they would like to deviate for policy reasons26. The draft main list shall be prepared by the Agency, taking into account the available budget27, the Work Programmes’ specific conditions and the criteria set by the CSC for the budget optimisation.

The relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs have five working days to inform the Agency regarding the use of the possible leftover budget and whether they intend to deviate from the draft main list for reasons related to strategic objectives, EU policies or the overall balance of proposals to be funded. To avoid parallel communication in this exercise, in particular for calls where there are several parent DGs and/or several implementing bodies it is recommended to organise a meeting at the Head of Unit level between all services (DGs and agencies) concerned to finalise the budget allocation and the main and reserve lists.

In accordance with the opinion of the relevant Research and Innovation parent DG on the use of leftover budget, if any, and provided there is no request to deviate from the draft main list, the Agency approves the Call Evaluation Report28. If the consulted relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs do not reply within five working days, the Agency approves the main list.

If the intention of the relevant Research and Innovation parent DG is to deviate from the draft main list, the decision, related to the selection of the specific proposal, has to be adopted by the College29. The relevant procedure has to be prepared, launched and followed by the relevant Research and Innovation parent DG that is in charge of the Secretariat of the relevant configuration of the Programme Committee, with the support of the concerned parent DG (as defined in section 1.2.3 of Part II(a) of this Memorandum 24 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 4, Grant proposals 25 For calls with two-stage evaluations, these provisions only concern the second-stage evaluation. For the

first stage, the agency transmits the Call Evaluation Reports to the DG 26 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 4, Grant proposals 27 The available budget includes the budget of the call plus any additional budget made available by the

relevant Research and Innovation parent DG(s) 28 In cases where some of the topics in the relevant call are managed by the DG(s) (e.g. CSAs calls), the

Call Evaluation Report shall be approved in line with the Horizon 2020 Vademecum 29 The average duration of obtaining a Commission Decision is around two months


of Understanding) keeping in mind the deadline to inform applicants. The relevant Research and Innovation parent DG will inform the Agency with respect to the final decision30.

3.5.2 Consultation on the use of the reserve list

The Agency shall consult the relevant Research and Innovation parent DG regarding the funding of proposals from the reserve list, in order to decide on the use of additional appropriations, if such appropriations become available.

In case the relevant Research and Innovation parent DG decides to deviate or to skip a proposal from the reserve list, this shall be considered as a deviation requiring a College Decision31.

If, after optimising the use of leftover budget, a non-sufficient budget for the funding of the next proposal from the reserve list is still available, the Agency shall consult the relevant Research and Innovation parent DG regarding the transfer of the corresponding amount to a different call or activity. If the above-mentioned transfer is within the 20% budget flexibility, no update of the Work Programme is required. However, if the transfer exceeds the 20% threshold, an amendment in the Work programme, preceded by a College Decision is necessary32.

3.5.3 Double funding The Agency sends the draft main lists to the Commission research services and Agencies to check instances of double funding. All concerned services have 25 working days to check instances of double funding, according to the Horizon 2020 Vademecum33.

Applicants can be informed about the evaluation results at any time during the period of 25 working days. In case instances of double funding are detected, they are to be dealt during the Grant Agreement Preparation and Grant Award decision.

3.6 Providing data and information The relevant Secretariat defined under section 1.2.3 shall provide to the Programme Committee for each call a set of information in accordance with Article 9(2) and Annex IV of the Horizon 2020 Specific Programme. To that end, the Agency will communicate to the relevant Secretariat the information related to the call / part of the call it implements in time so that it is sent to the Programme Committee at the latest one working day before the participants are informed about their evaluation results. The information for the Programme Committee will be provided in the format and by means of the Horizon 2020 IT applications suite developed for that purpose.

4. SELECTION PROCEDURE

4.1 Selection and rejection procedure In accordance with Article 5 of the Instrument of Delegation, the Commission adopts the decisions approving the funding of indirect actions submitted to the control by Member 30 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 4, Grant proposal and Section 5, Grant management 31 Guidance note – Optimal implementation of call budgets in H2020 Ares(2015)4622084, 27/10/2015

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79268288 32 Guidance note – Optimal implementation of call budgets in H2020, Ares(2015)4622084, 27/10/2015

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=79268288 33 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 4, Grant proposals


States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers in accordance with the examination procedure outlined in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011(Comitology Procedure). The indirect actions subject to this procedure are defined under Article 5(7) of the Horizon 2020 Specific Programme.

In accordance with the procedure described above, the responsible Secretariat, as defined under section 1.2.3, will submit to the opinion of the relevant configuration of the Programme Committee the list of indirect actions to be funded, which is annexed to the draft Commission's selection decision prepared by the Agency. The responsible Secretariat shall inform the Agency of the Commission’s selection decision once it is adopted. The resulting grant agreement is signed by the RAO of the Agency.

Following the above-mentioned Commission’s Decision, the Agency is in charge of informing applicants regarding the selection decision or the rejection of their proposal via IT tools. For selections that are not submitted to the control by Member States, the selection decisions are taken by the Agency based on the ranked list. Information about the progress on these grants should be carried out regularly at the working level34.

4.2 Providing data and information In accordance with Article 9(2) and Annex IV of the Horizon 2020 Specific Programme, the Agency provides to the Commission, via the Horizon 2020 IT applications suite, information that must be submitted to the Programme Committee.

4.3 Communication to beneficiaries

4.3.1. After experts evaluation

Based on the approved Evaluation report, the call coordinator/project officer of the Agency informs the applicant in line with the Horizon 2020 Vademecum.

The feedback to the applicants shall not be sent before the Programme Committee is informed. The rejection letters cannot be sent before the rejection decision is adopted35.

4.3.2. After ethics evaluation

The call coordinator/ project officer must prepare a rejection decision, validated by the RAO, for proposals which are rejected for lack of ethics clearance. Following the preparation of the rejection letter, the call coordinator/project officer, with the agreement of the RAO shall inform the coordinator by a formal notification, accompanied by the “ethics summary report”.

In case the review is finalised before the “evaluation result letters” are sent, the information on ethics requirements or recommendation shall be included in the “evaluation result letter”.

4.3.3. Security scrutiny

If the Commission decides not to fund a proposal because of security concerns, the call coordinator/ project officer shall prepare a rejection letter, validated by the RAO. The coordinator shall be informed by a “formal notification”. If the reasons given by the Member States' national security authorities are classified, they will not be included in the letter to the applicant.

34 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 5, Grant management 35 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 4, Grant Proposals


In case the security scrutiny is finalised before the “evaluation result letters” are sent, the information on security classification or recommendation shall be included in the “evaluation result letter”.

5. IMPLEMENTATION OF INDIRECT ACTIONS

5.1 Monitors Monitors36 are experts that may be used in order to support the Project Officers in charge of monitoring Horizon 2020 indirect actions (e.g. for a review or for an evaluation of the impact of indirect actions)37 according to the obligations stemming from the grant agreement38.

Pursuant to the Instrument of Delegation, the Agency selects contracts and pays monitors via the dedicated Horizon 2020 IT applications suite.

The REA validates the legal entity files and bank account files of all Horizon 2020 monitors. Further details are provided in Rules for the Administrative and Logistical Support Services provided by the REA for Horizon 2020 and Certain Other Programmes.

5.2 Providing data and information The Agency provides data and information on the implementation and on the outcome of indirect actions, including commitment and payment data, via the Horizon 2020 IT applications suite, in order to allow the Commission to fulfil, inter alia, its obligations stemming from Article 9 and Annex II, III and IV of the Horizon 2020 Specific Programme.

5.3 Feedback of (interim) results into policy making as part of the strategy for the dissemination and exploitation of Horizon 2020 research results The “Strategy for an Effective Dissemination and Exploitation of Research Results in Horizon 2020” (adopted on 23 September 2015), outlines how the European Commission will support and enhance the dissemination and exploitation activities of research and innovation projects and how it will benefit from project results as input into its policy making and programming activities. With regard to the latter, disseminating research results to policy stakeholders necessitates a close and permanent interaction between the Agency in charge of programme implementation and the parent DGs responsible for programme definition and related policy.

In order to ensure the regular exchange of information, it is indispensable to make the project related data available through the common IT tools, provided and maintained by the Common Support Centre. In this regard, the Agency is responsible for keeping this data up-to-date, complete and of good quality and for ensuring that the parent DGs can use the data independently through their read-only access rights in the IT systems. In the case that certain IT tools are not operational, the Agency will ensure the provision of the necessary data directly to the interested parent DGs. In this case the parent DGs and the Agency will agree on the type of data to be provided and communicated by the Agency.

A close collaboration between the Agency and policy directorates/units in the parent DGs is necessary to ensure that the results from the delegated actions can be used as input for 36 Former expert-reviewers 37 Horizon 2020 Vademecum, Section 2, Experts 38 Article 22 & 23, Annotated Model Grant Agreement


the Commission’s policy making. This feedback mechanism is embedded in many of the provisions of this Memorandum, e.g. in in the exchanges regarding the results of calls for proposals and the cooperation on call related events (such as info days), joint briefings of the expert evaluators and contribution by the Agency, upon request by the parent DGs, to the draft Work Programme. For a smooth and effective feedback to policy making, responsibilities and tasks need to be clearly assigned between the involved parties and along all stages of the project lifecycle, from proposal evaluation and selection to projects follow-up and reporting. More specifically, tasks and responsibilities, should at least, include the following:

In general the parent DGs

- Ensure that Project Officers in the Agency are properly briefed through information sessions on the specific policy content and objectives of relevant parts of the Work Programme and on current policy issues and developments in their respective thematic fields of responsibility and are in position to contribute with project outputs of policy value.

- Contact the Agency whenever they wish to communicate on project results in order to ensure the availability of updated and reliable information.

- Where appropriate, define clusters of projects in cooperation with the Agency on specific policy areas to obtain policy relevant information and data for policy purposes.

- Ensure proper stocktaking and impact monitoring of projects/clusters outputs of policy relevance, with the active support of the Agency.

- Organise, with the support of the Agency and the possible participation of relevant stakeholders including project beneficiaries, theme-specific cluster meetings aimed at collecting and consolidating key S&T evidence for informed-policy making and priority setting activities.

Proposal Evaluation

The Agency ensures that

- The panels of independent evaluators include experts with appropriate knowledge and experience on the dissemination and exploitation of research results. Regarding the pool of experts, the Agency will formally consult the parent DGs and give due consideration to suggestions brought forward by the parent DGs, unless the latter request not to be consulted.

- The independent evaluators are briefed on the importance attached by the Commission on the dissemination and exploitation aspects of the submitted proposals. Policy Officers from the parent DGs may contribute to these briefings by presenting policy relevant aspects.

- All proposals are evaluated and assessed with due emphasis on their dissemination and exploitation plans, according to the impact evaluation criteria established in the Horizon 2020 Work Programme. Policy officers from the parent DGs may attend panel review meetings as observers.


Project follow-up

The Agency ensures that

- All project information, data, deliverables and Project Officers assessment/reports are properly registered in the IT systems so that they are accessible by the Commission services in due time.

- Project Officers compile and provide the parent DGs with up to date information on projects’ main events including regular project and review meetings, unless the parent DGs request otherwise. Policy officers from the parent DGs may attend such project meetings.

- Project Officers review and assess electronically submitted project reports (periodic and final) and deliverables, as well as progress on dissemination and exploitation activities, and, if satisfied, approve them in the relevant IT system, according to the applicable business process.

- Project Officers flag, in the IT system, projects with high communication potential, outstanding dissemination activities, project deliverables and results with high policy relevance and exploitation potential and identify beneficiaries in need of help on exploitation.

- Project Officers organise, in close collaboration with the parent DGs, projects workshops and other events in order to facilitate the exchange of information between projects, increase the uptake of innovations and facilitate policy feedback.

The parent DGs and the Agency will

- Establish a list of contact persons including areas of their responsibility (per project on the Agency side, per thematic area on the DG side), in order to facilitate mutual direct contacts.

- Organise regular and ad-hoc coordination meetings to discuss implementation aspects, project results and contributions to programming and policy issues. Depending on the subject matter such meetings can take the form of common group or unit meetings, Heads of Unit meeting, invitations to the relevant staff to attend the counterpart's Unit meeting, individual contacts between project and policy officers, etc.

- Share, on a timely basis, information on events, conferences, requests for participation or contribution to publications and any other activity implying external communication that is relevant for dissemination, exploitation and/or policy purposes.

To maximize the impact of the above-mentioned joint actions, they shall be agreed and planned well in advance, taking into account the workload of both sides and in particular peak workload periods.

In addition, pursuant to Article 19(3) of the instrument of Delegation, the Agency will provide on an ad hoc basis any information needed by the parent DGs to reply to policy requests and ensure that the results of Horizon 2020 indirect actions are fed into policy making. These ad hoc requests will be organised in collaboration between the parent DGs and the Agency in order to minimise the impact on the workload of the Agency.


The Common Support Centre ensures that

- All necessary IT support applications including mechanisms and support tools for cooperation and communication between the project officer and the policy officer are functional and available to all services.

- All project reports, deliverables, other information and PO's assessments are available to the parent DGs in order to support relevant policy activities.

- Individual aggregated data and statistics on project outputs and deliverables are available at various levels of aggregation (Thematic Activity, Agency, Call), including clusters of projects, thus ensuring the best possible quality in collaboration with the data owners in the Agencies or the Commission.

- Services for big data, including data mining, are made available to serve as input to policy analyses by Policy Officers or Project Officers at the request of the parent DGs.

5.4 Participant Guarantee Fund waiver of entitlements The Commission remains responsible for the waiver of amounts due to the Agency and claimed by the Commission on behalf of the Participants Guarantee Fund or linked to the adoption of an enforced recovery decision. The provisions under section 2.1.3 of the MoU – Part I apply by analogy.

5.5 Ex-post audits on beneficiaries Audits are based on a common audit strategy defined by the Common Audit Service (CAS) of the Common Support Centre.

The CAS will assesses the legality and regularity of the payments for Horizon 2020 indirect actions by means of ex-post financial audits, carried out by its own auditors or by independent audit firms.

The Agency shall provide all necessary information and documents to allow the CAS auditors or the audit firms contracted by the CAS, to carry out ex-post financial audits. In accordance with the standard audit principles and the CSC’s procedures and strategy, the Agency will be involved on the draft of comments to audit reports. On that basis the CAS provides the Agency with necessary elements of assurance on the research budget for which the Agency is responsible.

The Agency is responsible for acting upon the audit findings and for taking corrective actions if needed.

6. OTHER ISSUES

6.1 Cross-cutting issues

6.1.1 Calls including more than one budget line (e.g. Focus Areas)

In the Horizon 2020 Work Programme, the Commission has defined a number of so called ‘focus areas’ of high relevance to several of the priorities or specific objectives of Horizon 2020. They are usually implemented through one common call39 which is included in the part of the work programme that has the highest ‘budget share’ in the focus area. The common call is financed from several budget lines, some of which would usually fall under different parts of the programme. Where several DGs and Agencies are 39 Common call is a call covering several budget lines managed by different RAOs from one or more

DGs/Agencies


involved in the same common call, a common evaluation exercise should be jointly prepared by the concerned services. Due to this additional complexity in the evaluation of proposals submitted to common calls, a dedicated business process will be defined and integrated in the relevant Horizon 2020 Vademecum to better describe the role, responsibilities and tasks of each service.

6.2 Contractual Public-Private Partnerships Where the Agency implements indirect actions part of a contractual Public-Private Partnership, it will provide to the relevant Research and Innovation parent DG any specific information required for reporting on the implementation of the contractual Public-Private Partnership.

7. EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION

7.1 National Contact Points The relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs are the main interface with the relevant network of National Contact Points (NCPs). The Agency supports the relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs.

A ‘NCP correspondent', will be nominated for each part of Horizon 2020 in the relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs. They will be the main contact point for their NCP network configuration. Each Agency will nominate NCP correspondents to mirror the structure in the relevant Research and Innovation parent DG. They will liaise as appropriate with the relevant Research and Innovation parent DG‘s NCP correspondent.

Furthermore, each agency will also nominate an NCP correspondent responsible for the overall coordination of NCP matters.

All DG NCP correspondents and the Agency coordinating correspondent will liaise as necessary with the relevant service in DG RTD, coordination NCP matters (DG RTD A.3).

The NCP correspondents will ensure an exchange of relevant information with the nominated correspondent for NCP/EEN relations in EASME.

On Handling questions from NCPs, and other external persons, related to Horizon 2020 calls, see the guidance on the Horizon 2020 Vademecum and on GoFund.

7.2 Communication on Horizon 2020

DGs and agencies share the goal of good and efficient communication on Horizon 2020. DGs and agencies will work together to fully exploit the communication potential while keeping in mind their different roles.

The Research and Innovation DGs, coordinated by the Communication Unit of DG RTD, are jointly responsible for Horizon 2020 policy communication to press and to general public based on the Common Communication Strategy for Horizon 2020.

The agency’s communication activities focus on:

• Communication to applicants and beneficiaries (including promotion of the calls and information days).

• Support of the DGs’ communication on project results and impacts (e.g. through success stories, organisation of events).


• Communication to participants (regarding legal and financial validation) and experts, in coordination with the Common Support Centre, where needed.

In line with the Horizon 2020 communication strategy established by the Commission’s Research and Innovation parent DGs40, the agency develops its own Communication Strategy in coordination with the parent DGs. The agency plans concrete communication activities (in line with its annual communication plan which is annexed to the AWP), in coordination with the policy units in the DGs (for each respective part of Horizon 2020) and with the communication teams on both sides including always the Communication Unit of DG RTD in charge of the overall Communication for Horizon 2020. The agency’s communication output will follow the Horizon 2020 corporate visual identity and the agreed templates of the R&I family DGs.

The Communication Unit of DG RTD will liaise with the corresponding communication units in the relevant Research and Innovation parent DGs and with the Communication Sector/Unit of the Agency in order to ensure efficient feedback for the policy communication activities.

Representatives from the Communication Sector/Unit of the Agency are invited to attend the meetings of the R&I family DGs Communication group41 convened regularly and inform the group with respect to any stakeholder communication which might be relevant for a possible joint action.

8. PROGRAMME EVALUATION

In accordance with Article 32 of Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 establishing Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, the Commission shall carry out, with the assistance of independent experts, an interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 to be completed by 31 December 2017 and an ex-post evaluation to be completed by 31 December 2023.

The Agency provides data and information on the implementation and on the outcome of indirect actions via the Horizon 2020 IT applications suite, in order to allow the Commission to fulfil its obligations stemming from Article 32 of the Regulation establishing Horizon 2020 as well as for all other assessments needed during the implementation of Horizon 2020.

40 The Horizon 2020: Communication Strategy 2014-2020' has been approved by DG COMM. Ref Ares

(2015)1850468-30/04/2015: http://intranet-rtd.rtd.cec.eu.int/int_com/H2020.html#INTCOM

41 The R&I Communication Units meetings are comprised of participants in the level of Head of Unit or Head of Sector for Communication from the R&I family DGs, Executive Agencies and Joint Undertakings


ANNEX – HORIZON 2020 PROGRAMME COMMITTEE CONFIGURATIONS

Horizon 2020 specific objectives / activities

Horizon 2020 Programme Committee configurations

Secretariat

FET Open European Research Council (ERC), Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) and Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA)

CNECT.F.342

Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions European Research Council (ERC), Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) and Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA)

EAC.B.343

Space Space GROW.I.1

Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine, maritime and inland water research and the bioeconomy

Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine, maritime and inland water research and the bioeconomy

RTD.F.1

Europe in a changing world – Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies

Europe in a changing world – Inclusive, innovative and reflective societies

RTD.B.8

Secure societies – Protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens

Secure societies – Protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens

HOME.B.4

Spreading excellence and widening participation

Strategic configuration RTD.A.3

Science with and for society Strategic configuration RTD.A.3

42 For the Programme Committee configuration "ERC/FET/MSCA" the overall coordination is provided

by DG RTD/A.6. However, DG CNECT/F.3 is in the lead for the adoption of the selection decisions approving the funding of FET Open indirect actions subject, in accordance with Article 5(7) of the Horizon 2020 Specific Programme, to the examination procedure

43 For the Programme Committee configuration "ERC/FET/MSCA" the overall coordination is provided by DG RTD/A.6. However, EAC.B.3 is in the lead for the adoption of the selection decisions approving the funding of MSCA indirect actions subject, in accordance with Article 5(7) of the Horizon 2020 Specific Programme, to the examination procedure


PART II(B) – FP7

1. COORDINATION BETWEEN RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FAMILY DGS AND THE AGENCY

1.1. FP7 management coordination meetings

Regular operational coordination meetings, at management level, will be organised between the concerned research and innovation DGs (RTD, EAC, GROW, HOME) and the Agency to ensure a proper implementation of the parts of FP7 legacy delegated to the Agency. The coordination will be combined with the coordination activities for Horizon 2020 actions.

1.2. Day to day FP7 legacy coordination

1.2.1. Agency and Research and Innovation DGs’ relevant services

The Agency's operational units maintain regular contacts with their counterparts in the parent DGs to ensure a permanent exchange of information and coordination in line with their respective roles in the implementation of FP7 legacy.

1.2.2. Agency and Research and Innovation DGs’ budget services

The Agency's Finance Unit maintains regular contacts with its counterparts in the parent DGs to ensure an optimal planning and implementation of the FP7 legacy operational budget.

2. LEGAL SUPPORT, BUSINESS PROCESSES, THE IT APPLICATIONS SUITE, PROGRAMME INFORMATION AND DATA, AND PROVISION OF RELEVANT TRAINING

The Agency remains responsible to provide the services of legal support, business processes, the IT applications suite, programme information and data, and provision of relevant training when related to the management of its FP7 legacy except where the operating rules of the CSC provide otherwise.

3. IMPLEMENTATION OF INDIRECT ACTIONS

3.1. Monitors

Monitors are contracted to carry out reviews on the proper implementation of FP7 indirect actions (including assessment of deliverables and reports), on the compliance with the obligations stemming from the grant agreement.

3.2. Providing data and information

The Agency provides data and information on the implementation and on the outcome of indirect actions.

3.3. Dissemination, use and exploitation of results

The dissemination, the use and the exploitation of the results of FP7 indirect actions will be integrated in the common strategy for Horizon 2020. The implementation means supporting that strategy will be designed and implemented by the CSC.


Without prejudice to the Agency’s responsibility to perform ex-post publicity and dissemination of project results, the relevant research and innovation DGs have the responsibility to pursue the dissemination, the use and exploitation of research and innovation programme results. The Agency shall support the relevant research and innovation DGs by providing to them the necessary information.

In addition, pursuant to Article 19(3) of the Instrument of Delegation, the Agency will provide on an ad hoc basis any information needed by the parent DGs to reply to policy requests and ensure that the results of FP7 indirect actions are fed into policy making. These ad hoc requests will be organised in order to minimise the impact on the workload of the Agency.

3.4. Participant Guarantee Fund waiver of entitlements

The Commission remains responsible for the waiver of amounts due to the Agency and claimed by the Commission on behalf of the Participants Guarantee Fund or linked to the adoption of an enforced recovery decision. The provisions under section 2.1.3 Waiver of Recovery of Entitlements and enforcement of recoveries of Part I of the MoU apply by analogy.

3.5. Ex-post audits

The Agency will follow the existing common audit strategy for FP7 and assess the legality and regularity of payments for FP7 indirect actions, by means of ex-post audits carried out either by its own auditors or by independent audit firms. Any follow-up tasks and obligations resulting from FP7 ex-post audits are carried out by the Agency.

4. NATIONAL CONTACT POINTS

The Agency cooperates with the relevant parent DG which is the main interface with the National Contact Points (NCPs). It supports the relevant parent DG in keeping NCPs informed of developments in the programme, and providing information and documents related to the work programme, calls and evaluation results.

5. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION

The FP7 communication work plan of the Agency is to be in line with the FP7 common communication strategy.

6. PROGRAMME EVALUATION

The Agency will be involved in the ex-post evaluation of FP7 to be completed by 31 December 2015 as well as any other assessments related to the activities delegated to the Agency.


SIGNATURES FOR PARTS I AND II(A) OF THE MOU

Done at Brussels, on …./……./….

For the parent DGs,

Mr Robert-Jan SMITS, Director-General, DG RTD [signed in ARES]

Ms Martine REICHERTS, Director-General, DG EAC [signed in ARES]

Mr Roberto VIOLA, Director-General, DG CNECT [signed in ARES]

Mr Jerzy Bogdan PLEWA, Director-General, DG AGRI [signed in ARES]

Ms Lowri EVANS, Director-General, DG GROW [signed in ARES]

Mr Matthias RUETE, Director-General, DG HOME [signed in ARES]

For the Agency,

Mr Gilbert GASCARD, Director, Research Executive Agency [signed in ARES]

Electronically signed on 05/02/2016 08:22 (UTC+01) in accordance with article 4.2 (Validity of electronic documents) of Commission Decision 2004/563