Horizon 2020 LEIT-Space 2016-2017

Rules for participation, proposal submission, evaluation procedure

Carmen AguileraH2020 Galileo Call Coordinator

European GNSS AgencyMarket Development Department

2

Types of action in 2017 and co-funding rates

• Research and Innovation Action (RIA) - EO-COMPETUp to 100% of eligible costs

• Innovation Action (IA) - EO-GALILEOUp to 70% of eligible costs

(exception: up to 100% for non-profit organisations)• Coordination and Support Action (CSA) EO-GALILEO-

COMPETUp to 100% of eligible costs

3

Receipt of proposals

Individualevaluation

Consensusgroup Panel Review Finalisation

Evaluators

IndividualEvaluation

Reports

(Usually done

remotely)

ConsensusReport

(May be done remotely)

Panel report

Evaluation Summary Report

Panel ranked list

At the same time: Ethics Screening

Eligibility/admissibility

check

Allocation of proposals to evaluators

Final ranked list

Evaluation results sent to applicants

Initiation Grant Agreement Preparation

Max. 5 months

Evaluation process for each call

Standard admissibility criteria

1. Submitted in the electronic submission system before the deadline Acknowledgement of Receipt

2. Complete (requested administrative forms + proposal description + supporting documents)

3. Readable, accessible and printable4. Respecting page limit (RIA/IA: 70 pages; CSA:50 pages)

o Outside the limit: - participating organisations (operational capacity check)

CV or profile description of staff carrying out the workA list of up to 5 publications and/or other research or innovation productsA list of up to 5 relevant previous projects/activitiesRelevant available infrastructure/equipment descriptionDescription of additional third parties contributing to the work

- ethics self assessment, data management plan (open access to peer-reviewed scientific publications)

5

Coordination & support action

One legal entity established a Member State or associated country.

Standard eligibility criteria1) Content corresponds, wholly or in part, to the topic description

against which it is submitted2) Proposal complies with the minimum participation and any other

eligibility conditions set out for the type of action:

Research & innovation action a. Three legal entities.

b. Each of the three shall be established in a different Member State or associated country. c. All three legal entities shall be independent of each other.Innovation action

6

Can be supplemented or m

odified in the call conditions

Non

-elig

ibili

ty c

an a

lso

be d

isco

vere

d du

ring/

afte

r ev

alua

tion

Countries eligible WP General Annex Ato receive funding

EU-Member States The Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT)

linked to the MS: Anguilla, Aruba, Bermuda, Bonaire, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Curaçao, Falkland Islands, French Polynesia, Greenland, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn Islands, Saba, Saint Barthélémy, Saint Helena, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Sint Eustatius, Sint Maarten, Turks and Caicos Islands, Wallis and Futuna .

Horizon 2020 associated countries Check Funding Guide for up-to-date information whether agreements are signed (15 associated countries as of April 2016): http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/international-cooperation_en.htm

Third countries listed in General Annex A International organisation of European interest*

*International organisation not of European interest can be eligible for funding only exceptionally

7

Other countries eligible to receive funding

Legal entities established in countries not listed in Annex A and international organisations will only be eligible for funding:

o if explicitly mentioned in the call text, oro when funding for such participants is provided for

under a bilateral scientific and technological agreement or any other arrangement between the Union and an international organisation or a third country, or

o when the Commission deems participation of an entity essential for carrying out the action funded through Horizon 2020

8

Receipt of proposals

Individualevaluation

Consensusgroup Panel Review Finalisation

Evaluators

IndividualEvaluation

Reports

(Usually done

remotely)

ConsensusReport

(May be done remotely)

Panel report

Evaluation Summary Report

Panel ranked list

Eligibility/admissibility

check

Allocation of proposals to evaluators

Final ranked list composed and

information sent to applicants

Max. 5 months

Evaluation process for each call

Excellence, transparency, fairness and impartiality and efficiency and speed

Done by independent experts selected by REA/GSA/EASME from Experts database on Participant Portalo Balance in terms of

1. Skills, experience and knowledge2. Other factors- geographical diversity- gender- where appropriate, the private and public sectors- an appropriate turnover from year to year

o No conflict of interest !

Proposal evaluation basic principles

10

Evaluation:Selection criteria

11

Operational capacity:

• Assessed by the experts during evaluations• Check if the consortium partners have the basic capacity

to carry out the proposed work: experience, expertise, availability of infrastructure, equipment, human resources etc. to carry out proposed activity

• Based on information provided by the applicant in the proposal (Part B): CVs, publications, references, explanation of available infrastructure, etc.

• If something is missing at the time of the proposal, include explanation on how to have it available for the project: recruitment plans, plans on how to access missing equipment or infrastructure etc.

Extent that proposed work corresponds to the topic description in the work programme

o Clarity and pertinence of the objectives o Soundness of the concept, and credibility of the

proposed methodologyo Extent that proposed work is beyond the state of the

art, and demonstrates innovation potential (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches, new products, services or business and organisational models)

o Appropriate consideration of interdisciplinary approaches and, where relevant, use of stakeholder knowledge.

Exce

llenc

eEvaluation criteria: Research and Innovation Actions/Innovation Actions/ SME instrument

13

o The extent to which the outputs would contribute to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic

o Any substantial impacts not mentioned in the WP, that would enhance innovation capacity; create new market opportunities, strengthen competitiveness and growth of companies, address issues related to climate change or the environment, or bring other important benefits for society

o Quality of proposed measures to exploit and disseminate project results (including IPR, manage research data where relevant); communicate the project activities to different target audiences

Impa

ctEvaluation criteria: Research and Innovation Actions/Innovation Actions/ SME instrument

Compulsory Preliminary Business PlanGALILEO-1,2,3

What: Demonstrate the commercial potential of the product and/or service and

describe how this potential will be realised. Why: It is an input to evaluate the Impact criteria.How: Template available in the participant portal.

• Define the proposed offering: the product and/or service and target market sector.

• Review the market sector: structure, size, drivers, market and technology trends.

• Assess the competition: main players, their current offerings and market share.

• Describe the innovation of the proposed offering in the context of the competition and the sector’s needs

• Summarise potential business model(s) together with possible entry price(s) and costs

• Assess the key risks to market entry and possible options for risk mitigation.

• Outline, graphically, the roll-out of the offering: timescale, sales growth and market share.

15

o Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, including extent to which resources assigned in work packages are in line with objectives/ deliverables

o Appropriateness of management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management

o Complementarity of the participants which the consortium as a whole brings together expertise

o Appropriateness of allocation of tasks, ensuring that al participants have a valid role and adequate resources in the project to fulfill that role

Impl

emen

tati

on

Evaluation criteria: Research and Innovation Actions/Innovation Actions/ SME instrument

Evaluation criteria: Coordination & Support Actions

o Extent that proposed work corresponds to the topic description in the work programme

o Clarity and pertinence of the objectives o Soundness of the concept, and credibility of the proposed

methodologyo Quality of the proposed coordination and/or support measures

Exce

llenc

e

o The expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic

o Quality of proposed measures to:- Exploit and disseminate project results (including IPR, manage data research where relevant);- Communicate the project activities to different target audiences

Impa

ct

o Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, including extent to which resources assigned in work packages are in line with objectives/deliverables

o Appropriateness of management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation mgto Complementarity of the participants which the consortium as a whole brings together

expertiseo Appropriateness of allocation of tasks, ensuring that al participants have a valid role and

adequate resources in the project to fulfill that roleImpl

emen

tatio

n

SAME AS RIA / IA

Evaluation scores are awarded per criterion, scale from 0 to 5, half point scores may be given

Maximum score: 15 Individual criteria threshold: 3 Total score threshold: 10

Proposal scoring

17

1. Per criterion: Assessment, comments, justifications

Excellence: "The objectives ….."

Impact: "The innovation capacity….."

Quality and efficiency of the implementation: "The management ….."

4,0 4,5

3,5 Σ 12,0 out of 15,0

2. Matching scores

Receipt of proposals

Individualevaluation

Consensusgroup Panel Review Finalisation

Evaluators

IndividualEvaluation

Reports

(Usually done

remotely)

ConsensusReport

(May be done remotely)

Panel report

Evaluation Summary Report

Panel ranked list

Eligibility/admissibility

check

Allocation of proposals to evaluators

Final ranked list composed and

information sent to applicants

Max. 5 months

Evaluation process for each call

Done by experts in panel review 1 ranked list per topic or per group of topics with a

dedicated budget Preparation: "cross-reading"

Rankingof proposals

20

11,514,513,5

14,0

H2020 Space calls 2017 evaluation planning

Receipt of proposals

Individualevaluation

Consensusgroup

Panel Review

Finalisation

1 March 2017: Closing of Call June 2017: Ethics screening July – August 2017 Inform applicants

Time-To-Grant (TTG): 8 months

Eligibility check

Allocation of proposals to evaluators

IndividualEvaluation

Reports

(done remotely)

ConsensusReport

Panel report

Evaluation Summary Report

Cross-readings

Panel ranked list

Final ranked list

Evaluation results sent to

applicants

Initiation Grant Agreement Preparation

Remote evaluations April – May 2017

Central evaluations May – June 2017

Time-To-Inform (TTI): 5 months

GAP

November 2017GAP ending

All Grant Agreements

signed

*Legal limit for TTI is 1.8.2017

Be focused and specific Build on fairly mature application or business concepts and fill the gapExplain what is new, your added value, how you will move forward

Build on technical and market understanding and expertiseIdeally, entities with sufficient knowledge of specific marketsConsortium bringing all needed competences: clear roles, no overlap

Demonstrate a clear motivation to commercialise the products and servicesMarket entry plan (marketing strategy & business plan)Previous achievements in the specific marketShow your commitment and capability to go to market

Focus on practical impact Include trials, demonstration, testing involving final users in their real life procedures Produce practical tools useful for the GNSS developer community

Select applications where EGNOS and Galileo differentiators are key for the product/service success

Successful proposal- some hints and GSA lessons learnt

Stand out from the crowd!

• DO use real EGNOS and Galileo signals. If simulations are needed, explain why and how.

• DO include references to previous research and results: available technologies, prototypes, infrastructure, results and what/how you will build on them

• DO use the GSA Market report to build your business plan and be realistic

• DO involve newcomers. Especially partners with market access and innovation track record in GNSS applications are an asset

• DON’T just integrate a GNSS receiver, but focus on E-GNSS research and its differentiators

• DON’T limit yourself to the GNSS applications listed in the WP, these are examples

• DON’T focus on GNSS receiver development, the objective of the call is applications

• DON’T wait until the last minute to submit your proposal

Some myths

A good mix of nationalities is important

All evaluators are academics with no business experience

Letters of interest are important (when they are not ready to become partners)

Consortia that are already in a funded project have a much higher probability of success.

Focus on expertise and complementarity

Mix of evaluators with business and technical background

Commitment, resources and role of external participants must be explained

Ensure track record of successful innovation and access to the target market. We look for commercially viable projects and do not need follow-on funding

Horizon 2020 LEIT-Space 2016-2017

How to prepare a good proposal

Virginia PuzzoloHead of the Project Management SectorEuropean Commission Research Executive Agency REA.B1 Space Research

Call Content

External vs internal success factors

Open or top-down Topics Budget availability

Evaluation criteria

Proposal structure

H2020 Rules Eligibility Admissibility

• Carefully read the Call topics text and additional documents: proposal content and consortium composition should answer scope and expected impacts of the Call topic.

Know your success factors

• Your idea may fit better in other calls? Check the Calls launched within

• the "Excellent Science" Programme • the "Societal Challenges" Programme• SME actions • Fast track to Innovation Pilot

• Resubmissions: • The call topic may have slightly changed from previous call • Update it as 2-3 years is

a long time in science / technology

31

TopicsTopics

Calls for proposalsCalls for proposals

Topics

Specific challenge

Scope

Expected Impact

The 'problem' Identifies the aspects of the challenge that needs to be tackled. WP text does not outline the expected solutions to the problem, nor the approach to be taken by the applicant ("non-prescriptive" approach)

Calls for proposals

H2020 Space Work Programme

The 'problem in detail'Provides more details on the specific challenge by specifying a perimeter to the problem described

The 'change' to be achievedProvides a broad description of what is the impact to be achieved through the project(s) to be funded. The dissemination and exploitation of future research results are vital for the impact

WP structure of the 'calls‘ & ‘topics’

Demonstrate WHAT – WHY – HOW !

An excellent idea is the basis of a good proposal but is not sufficient….

The expected impacts and implementation aspects

are as important !

The proposal should excel in each single criterion !

Be specific in your objectives and expected impacts and clearly demonstrate how you aim to implement and sustain them

Quality = key to success

Proposal – PART B

1. Excellence1.1 Objectives1.2 Relation to the work programme1.3 Concept and methodology1.4 Ambition

2. Impact2.1 Expected impacts2.2 Measures to maximise impacta) Dissemination and exploitation of

resultsb) Communication activities

3. Implementation3.1 Work plan — Work packages, deliverables3.2 Management structure, milestones and procedures3.3 Consortium as a whole3.4 Resources to be committed

Crt 1.1 - Clarity and pertinence of the objectives

1. EXCELLENCE

PART B - 1. Excellence

1.1 Objectives -> clear, measurable, realistic and achievable within project duration

1.2 Relation to the work programmeexplain how your proposal addresses the specific challenge and scope of the work programme topic

1.3 Concept and methodology(a)Concept• Describe and explain the overall concept + main

ideas, models or assumptions involved. • Technology Readiness Levels • Links with other projects/activities• Identify any inter-disciplinary considerations and,

where relevant, use of stakeholder knowledge; (a)Methodology• Describe and explain the overall methodology

1.4 Ambition• advance beyond the state-of-the-art • extent the proposed work is ambitious• Describe the innovation potential

Crt 1.2 - Soundness of the concept, and credibility of the proposed methodologyBE CAREFULL with HIGH TRL and plan well the activities - resources needed to achieve them

Crt 1.3 - Extent that proposed work is beyond the state of the art, and demonstrates innovation potential

Crt 1.4 - Appropriate consideration of interdisciplinary approaches and, where relevant, use of stakeholder knowledge. Who are your stakeholders, USERS, CUSTOMERS? How do you plan to use their knowledge ?

Innovation ≠ Invention(an invention can grow into innovation by proper exploitation)

"Innovation is about satisfying needs and wants and delivering tangible benefits"

H2020 aims for a balanced approach to research and innovation, not only limited to the development of new

products and services on the basis of scientific and technological breakthroughs (=research dimension), but also

incorporating aspects such as the use of existing technologies in novel applications, continuous improvement and non- technological and social

innovation (=innovation dimension).

Innovation dimension in H2020

Innovation in the Evaluation criteria

Enhancing innovation capacity : (Any substantial impacts not mentioned in the WP, that would enhance innovation capacity; create new market opportunities, strengthen competitiveness and growth of companies, .. ) Addressing barriers/obstacles, and any framework

conditions such as regulation and standards; of the participating organisations/research community

by enabling new processes or partnerships beyond the project consortium.

Innovation potential : (e.g. ground-breaking objectives, novel concepts and approaches, new products, services or business and organisational models).

Innovation management = is a process which requires an understanding of both market and technical problems, with a goal of successfully transfer the innovations developed. Is innovation management clearly assigned? How will innovation management be taken care of? Are concrete innovation tools identified? ...

2. IMPACT

PART B - 2. Impact

2.1 Expected impacts• each of the expected impacts mentioned under the relevant topic• any substantial impacts not mentioned in the

work programme

• Describe any barriers/obstacles, and any framework conditions

2.2 Measures to maximise impacta) Dissemination and exploitation of results• draft ‘plan for the dissemination and

exploitation of the project's results’• Business plan where relevant• Outline the strategy for knowledge management

and protection (incl IPR)• Open Research Data -> information on how the

participants will manage the research data generated and/or collected during the Project

a) Communication activities• promoting the project and its findings -> tailored to different target audiences, including groups beyond the project's own community

Crt 2.1 - The extent to which the outputs would contribute to the expected impacts listed in the work programme under the relevant topic Crt 2.2 - Any substantial impacts not mentioned in the WP, that would enhance innovation capacity; create new market opportunities, strengthen competitiveness and growth of companies, address issues related to climate change or the environment, or bring other important benefits for society

Crt 2.3 - Quality of proposed measures to • exploit and disseminate project results

(including IPR, manage research data where relevant)

• communicate the project activities to

different target audiences

Dissemination – one direction path (mainly presenting results) e.g. presentation to conferences, publication in peer review journal, etc.

• Dissemination plan: Raise awareness about project outputs

Communication – two directions path (results & project activities) e.g. organising workshop with users, discuss with customers, etc…

• Communication plan: Tailored to the needs of various audiences, including the public policy perspective of EU research and innovation funding

Often only general reference to communication activities made and these consist more of dissemination actions !!!!

Dissemination ≠ Communication

Exploitation plan: • At which technical readiness level (TRL) do you start and how will

you reach the TRL you aim for as expressed in the objectives of your proposal?

• What are the needed business model and marketing activities and how will they be decided amongst partners?

Common mistakes in Exploitation: • Lack of clear exploitation strategy (especially relevant for IAs)• Lack of clear indication which results which will be

exploited, in which way, by whom• IPR issues (access to background, results exploitation) left to the

Consortium Agreement only

Dissemination ≠ Communication ≠ Exploitation

Exploitation

• Management of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR): Demonstration of specific measures in scope ownership, access/use, etc. during and after the project:

A short reference on IPR "to be developed in the Consortium Agreement" is not sufficien

IPR

1. Identify your own background (data, know-how and/or information held or identified by participants prior to their accession to the action)

2. Verify if background of third parties is needed. If yes, what are their access rights? Need for authorisation to use and exploit the results?

3. Check the state-of-the-art: existing patents? E.g. via database provided by the European Patent Office: Espacenet

1. Specify the ownership of the results: Who owns what? Any transfers? On which conditions?

2. Is there is a need to protect the results? If yes, assign cost. Ensure appropriate access and usage right for key IP during AND after the project (results & background)

Open Access to scientific publications

Open Access to scientific publications is obligation under H2020= online access at no charge to the user to peer-reviewed scientific publications Two main OA publishing models:

o Self-archiving: 'traditional' publication plus deposit of manuscripts in a repository ('Green OA')

- Both versions contain the same peer-reviewed content, but may be differently formatted / usually, but not always, with embargo

o OA publishing: immediate OA provided by publisher ('Gold OA')

- Usually, but not always, 'Author-pay' model (APC)- Some journals offer both subscriptions and open access publishing to

selected on-line articles (hybrid journals)

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf

NEW: Open access to research data

Open research data sharing applies to the data needed to validate the results presented in scientific publications

Additionally, projects can choose to make other data available open access and need to describe their approach in a Data Management Plan (DMP), included as a deliverable in the project

Costs related to data management and data sharing are eligible for reimbursement during the project duration

Now by default obligatory for all new topics o except if they decide to opt-out for example for commercial or security reasons

(see WP Annex L). Projects can opt-out at any stage.o Proposals will not be evaluated more favourably for participating or penalised for

opting out.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/open-access-data-management/open-access_en.htm

3. IMPLEMENTATION

PART B – 3. IMPLEMENTATION3.1 Work plan — Work packages, deliverables• overall structure of the work plan• timing of the different work packages Gantt chart • detailed work description (WP, deliverables, etc..)• Pert chart or similar (inter-relation of the WPs)

3.2 Management structure, milestones and procedures• organisational structure and the decision-making

mechanisms + why they are appropriate to the complexity and scale of the project.

• where relevant, innovation management• Describe any critical risks, relating to project

implementation + mitigation measures

3.3 Consortium as a whole• Describe the consortium • Describe the contribution of each partner• If a participant requesting EU funding is based in a

country or is an international organisation that is not automatically eligible for funding, explain why the participation of the entity in question is essential to carrying out the projectm

3.4 Resources to be committed• table showing number of person/months required • table showing ‘other direct costs’ for participants

where those costs exceed 15% of the personnel costs

Crt 3.1 Quality and effectiveness of the work plan, including extent to which resources assigned in work packages are in line with objectives/ deliverables

Crt 3.2 - Appropriateness of management structures and procedures, including risk and innovation management

Crt 3.3 - Complementarity of the participants which the consortium as a whole brings together expertise

Crt 3.4 - Appropriateness of allocation of tasks, ensuring that all participants have a valid role and adequate resources in the project to fulfil that role

AVOID EMPTY SHELLS !

DO NOT FORGET SUBCONTRACTS and THIRD PARTIES

And explain well HIGH OTHER DIRECT COSTS

• Each applicant is responsible for: identifying any potential ethics issues handling ethical aspects of their proposal detailing how they plan to address them in sufficient

detail already at the proposal stage so to conform to national, European and international regulations

Part A in SEP – ethics self-assessment Part B section 5

Ethics Self-Assessment by the applicant

How to complete your ethics self-assessment

Guideline for applicants

In Space: Dual Use, export licenses, 3rd countries Does this research have the potential for military

applications?o Exclusive civilian focus of the research must be demonstrated

Do you need export licenses (for dual use items)?o E.g., GNC, TPS etc.

Risk mitigation strategies for:o Mission creep: change of focus toward militaryo Leak of "sensitive" information (misuse)

Does the participation of Third Countries, i.e., non-EU, beneficiaries or other, raise ethical issues? Export/Import Control?

The Regulation: Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/june/tradoc_143390.pdf

Understand the domain and its challenges R&D but also market, IPR and regulations, competition

Be clear and explicitEvaluators must judge only what they read and not on the proposal potential. Thez have limited time .

Do a mock evaluation Ask a colleague to conduct a self-assessment of the proposal against each evaluation sub-criterion. If you don't find the right answer easily in the text, the evaluators won't find it either!

Optimise available time to prepare your proposal• Last minute preparations are often reflected in a lower quality which largely

reduces the changes in success; • Start a draft early + Submit on time • Incomplete submission is not an Obvious Clerical Error• Late submission in IT system = inadmissible proposal. Deadlines are strict!

Do not be afraid of letting the Commission see the abstract of your proposal in order to help us identify the best possible expert.

Optimise your chances to success

Contact your NCP (National Contact Point) for assistance. They are there to help you to understand the submission and evaluation process. NCPs have exclusive access to communication lines with the Commission for questions related to the Work Programme.  http://ncp-space.net/

For general questions on Horizon 2020, the Research Enquiry Service Helpdesk can also provide support.   http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=enquiries

Need for more information?

Call pages: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunitiesWork Programme 2016-2017 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/sites/horizon2020/files/05iii.%20LEIT%20Space%202016-2017_pre-publication.pdf Grants Manual - Section on: Proposal submission and evaluation http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/pse/h2020-guide-pse_en.pdf Guidance for evaluators of Horizon 2020 proposals http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/pse/h2020-evaluation-faq_en.pdf Templates for mock evaluations: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/call_ptef/ef/h2020-call-ef-ria-ia-csa_en.pdfH2020 reference documents: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/funding/reference_docs.html Communication guidelines for projects: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/gm/h2020-guide-comm_en.pdfGuide on beneficiary registration, validation and financial viability check Manual: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/index_en.htm

ETHICSHow to complete your ethics Self-Assessment:http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/ethics/h2020_hi_ethics-self-assess_en.pdfEthics Issues Table template:http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/ethics/ethics-eit_en.pdf

Some links

47

Call for newexperts

Call for Expression of Interest for new experts for H2020 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/experts/index.html

Thank you for your attention !