evaluation summary report (esr) - european parliament · evaluation summary report: call for...

Training of National Judges Evaluation summary report:Call for proposals 2013

Proposal No. : 2013-3801-01 Proposal Title: EUI

Evaluation Summary Report (ESR)

SCORiNGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-JO. Ha(fmarks may be given.Interpretation of the scores:(1 —The proposal falls to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformationI — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are sigi4.fIcant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.4— Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.5— Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.

1. RelevanceNote: when a proposal only partially addresses the objectives, this condition will bereflected in the scoring ofthis criterion.

• Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives• Soundness of priority addressed• Relevance training/expected results

The proposal fully meets the objectives and priorities of the Call. It could better statewhether the increased Importance of the topic also applies to civil law judges (which arespecifically targeted by the proposal) Criteria I:

Threshold 15/30

25

2. Quality and efficiency• Appropriateness of the methodology and timeframe• Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants• Quality of the partnerships as a whole (only if relevant)• Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be

committed (staff, equipment...)

Criteria II:The proposal displays very good methodoloqy, proloot planning and overi.il c.rganlsr ties. Threshold 15/307e de’r of ;te Pecnurage tao :raoI mm of porspom mrmea us rdt, marketing through National Judicial Acadkmies 1k suited to asmvt h:gh qualPy 24 3pa.rllcipants. A.n additic.nal event midway through the proJect’k lilecycie to complementonline training would have L.een beneficial.

___________


posal No. : 2013-3801-01 Proposal Title: EUI 13. Cost effectiveness

• Budget appropriate in relation to expected resultso Costs represent a good value for money• Costs of human resources (staff, speakers) are appropriate etc.

The proposal has a wide variety of adivities to train national judges and the prc posedbudget could be justified in view of the content, effort, outcome sought and number ofjudges to be trained. Nevertheless a reduction of the total number of working days Criteria Ill:recommended. Threshold 10/20

15.3

4. Dissemination• Appropriate and effective dissemination• Results will have sustainable impact

The proposal has a very good dissemination plan which is veiy likely to have a lastingimpact.

Criteria IV:

9

5. EU dimension• Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected results

listed in the Call for Proposals• Added EU value• Geographical scope

The proposal displays an excellent EU dimension by iargeting judges from almost all Criteria V:Mornber States.

10

Total score(l+ll+lIl+IV+V)

Threshold60/100

83,5

Any other remarkse.g. recommendations for negotiation, only if the proposal is above threshold (includingrecommendations for the budget)

A reduction of the tohd number of working days of staff is rrwommended (around 240 days •shouid b.c

2


Proposal No. : 2013-3801 -01 Proposal Title: EUI

Rtrt fe4uipr ni r i ‘o’ ,fojb1,c Id & dalILdddfe&Lt rnnrKetprl I

Evaluation summary report:Call for proposals 2013


Training of National Judges

LProposal No. : 2013-3801-02 Proposal Title: Maastricht University

SCORINGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-10. Haifmarks may be given.Interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal falls to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinjormationI — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signqlcant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.S — Excellent. ihe proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects ot the criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.

1. RelevanceNote: when a proposal only partially addresses the objectives, this condition will bereflected in the scoring of this criterion.


The proposal addresses the objectives and priorities well, with relevant andspecific topics for the participants. Nevertheless, a basic differentiation of thecourse curricula for beginners and experts (which are specifically targeted by theproposal) would be recommended.

Criteria I:Threshold 15/30

22,2


committed (staff, equipment ...)

The proposais activities and methodologies are good, especially the orgenisation of localseminars in the various Member States as well as the overall interactivity of theprogramme. Attracting participants from some countries to the international conferencewould probably prove to be difficult without a local partner. Furthermore the seminarsseem to be mostly focused on the energy sector (including the speakers’ background),whereas a more general approach would be better suited for the targeted audience(especially beginners.

Criteria II:Threshold 15/30

19.3

I


posal No. : 2013-3801-02 Proposal Title: Maastricht University

3. Cost effectivenessBudget appropriate in relation to expected results

• Costs represent a good value for money

• Costs of human resources (staff, speakers) are appropriate etc.

The proposaPs budget is in line with proposed activities, however staff costs for Belgium

appear to be excessive and do not seems ro be cosbetficient, Travel exoenses of staff are

excessive when compared to market prices. Criteria Ill:Threshold 10/20

13

4. Dissemination• Appropriate and effective dissemination

• Results will have sustainable impact

The proposar dissemination and expost evaluation are not entirely orecubic. The

suggested eLearning tool does not offer the possibility to the participants to interact, but is

simply an online repository of documents related to the project. The proposed assessment

of the effects of the training (through a comparison of judgementsJ is reliant on too many Criteria IV:uncertain factors outside of the applicantseontrol.

5.7



The proposal targets an excellent variozy and number of EU Naiiona!ities and Acceding Criteria V:Countries.

9

Total score(I+ll+llI+IV+V)

Threshold60/1 00

69


Cost of Belgian staff scorn excessivo and couki f.e reduced, Addpt travc! costs of neff to market prices. dim aciis.seminalion strategy arid e.mposi comfuation.




Proposal No. : 2013-3801-03 Proposal Title: Radboud University Nijmegen

SCORINGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-10. Halfmarks may be given.Interpretation of the scores:0—The proposal falls to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformation1 — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signfIcant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessaty.4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.5 Excellent, The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.

1. RelevanceNote: when a proposal only partially addresses the objectives, this condition will bereflected in the scoring o/this criterion.


The proposal has a very good structure, matching the objectives and priorities of the Call.The limited number of participants and the interactive training are likely to have asignificant impact on the target audience. The topics to be taught could be described inmore detail. Criteria I:

Threshold 15/30

24


committed (staff, equipment

The proposal has a good planning and balance of activities with good follow-up after theconference to ensure that the project’s results can be further used. The proposed webplatform is innovative and interactive, but it would be recommended that it be madeavailable beyond the project’s target audience.


22

1


posal No. : 2013-3801-03 Proposal Title: Radboud University Nijmegen

3. Cost effectiveness• Budget appropriate in relation to expected results



The proposaPs budget is overall goad, but certain costs seem excessive, notably:

Cost of staff (‘number of working dysJ Criteria Ill:Speakers’ fees i’number of rnamdays on site and cast per speaker Threshold 10/20Innovative platform (justification of cost items mqht b-a necessar;

I 3.5



The proposal has a vety good dissemination plan and the results are likely to be

sustainable provided the web platform is opened to a wder audience and regularly

maintained. The organisation of a one week seminar for a limited number ot participants is

likely to result in permanent benefits for the participating judges. Criteria IV:

8,2


listed in the Call for Proposals

• Added EU value• Geographical scope

The proposal has very good ELI scope and added value addressing previously neglected Criteria V:nationalities,

Total score(I+ll+llI+IV+V)

Threshold60/100

76

Any other remarkse.g. recommendations for negotiation, only if the proposal is above threshold (including

recommendations for the budget)

The evaluation committee recommends:


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-03 Proposal Title: Radboud University Nijmegen

- Broaden the access to the interactive tool beyond the participants in the conference- Reduce it possible the total number of working days for staff- Reduce if possible the Speakers fees and the number of man-days on sitePruvidjtstificaun jf costs for the Innovahc platforrr iramly bjprovidzny red; ndIhet orfets




Proposal No.: 2013-3801-04 Proposal Title: Bignon Lebray

SCORiNGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-10. Hallmarks may be given.Interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformationI — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signficanr weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well although certain improvements are still possible.5— Excellent, The proposal successfidly addresses all relevant aspects ofthe criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.

1. RelevanceNote: when a proposal on/v partially addresses the objectives, this condition will bereflected in the scoring of this criterion.

• Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives• Soundness of priority addressed• Relevance training!expected results

The proposal addresses basic training for lower court judges, for which not manycompetition framings exist. The objectives cf the proposal are not clearly defined, nor arethe means to ensure the priorities of the Call will be met. There is no consistent strategy tohow to attract Belgian and Luxembourgish judges and, lacking that, the proposal would failto have a multi-country approach.


16,8



The project coordinator is of adequate experience and hails from the judicial sector,nevertheless the proposal has only limited descriptions of teaching methodology, topics,evaluation and monitoring systems. The proposal expresses the hope to be included in thepermanent training curricula for French judges, but this is in no way substantiated. Therole of the partner from Luxembourg is not described in sufficient detail.


13,8

1


{iPosal No. : 2013-3801-04 Proposal Title: Bignon Lebray 13. Cost effectiveness

Budget appropriate in relation to expected results• Costs represent a good value for money• Costs of human resources (staff, speakers) are appropriate etc.

The proposal’s budget is cosbefficient (calculated in cost to train one judge per dày €92!+ number of events organised), but whether results can be met is nevertheless

questionable, making an accurate appreciation of the budget hard to make. Criteria Ill:Threshold 10/20

11


The proposal’s dissemination strategy is focused on the personal contacts of theorganiser, making its result highIy unpredictable. While this approach per so could, intheory be successful, the necessary •stes to implement it are not described in theproposal. Further to this the proposals lacks a description of how a sustainable impact will Criteria IV:be reached.

4,2



The proposal sufficiently addresses the EU geographical scope and added value. The Criteria V:lack of a marketing strategy for BE and LU judges may negatively affect the EU addedvalue of the project.

6

Total score(l+ll+llI+IV+V)

Threshold60/100

52


fEvaluators’ comments will be inserted herej

2


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-05 Proposal Title: Competition Council of Romania


SCORiNGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-10. Ha(f marks may be given.interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformationI — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2— Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signjIcant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.5— Excellent The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects ofthe criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.



The project meets the objectives and priorities of the Call, however description of thetopics is very general and follow-up is not sufficiently described.


22,8


committed (staff, equipment ..,)

The proposal is overall clear, however some paints (conferences, fallow-up, marketing, Criteria II:dissemination) could be further expanded. Out of the 200 expected participants it is only Threshold 15/30expected to train 20 judges. Methodology could be improved by adding interactive training.The topics are well tailored to the needs of the judges, coming from past experiences of

20 5judges themselves,


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-05 Proposal Title: Competition Council of Romania

3. Cost effectiveness• Budget appropriate in relation to expected results• Costs represent a good value for money• Costs of human resources (staff, speakers) are appropriate etc.

The proposal’s budget does not seem cost effective in the following items:

- Excessive copies of manual Criteria Ill:- Unjustified participation of extra number of delegated to opening and closing Threshold 10/20

conferences-ITexpenses seem excessive 11 3- Number of working days is overestimated


The proposal provides for a dissemination plan, hut its effectiveness is not .sufficientiyclear. Sustainability of the results cannot hence be accurately assessed.

Criteria IV:

5,3



The proposal addresses well the EU dimension and added value of the Call, Criteria V:

7.5

Total score(l+ll+IIl+IV+V)

Threshold60/1 00

67.5


- Reduce significantly the copies of the manual to be printed- Significantly reduce or do not financially support the participation of extra number of delegated to opening

2


Proposal No. : 2013-3801 -05 Proposal Title: Competition Council of Romania

and closing conferences- Justify with market offers the number and pricing of the three IT platforms- Reduce significantly the number of staff working days


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-06 Proposal Title: Italian Competition Authority


SCORINGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-10. Ha(fmarks may be given.Interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete

information1 — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signficant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary’.4— Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well although certain improvements are still possible.

5 — Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any

shortcomings are minor.

1. RelevanceNote: when a proposal only partially addresses the objectives, this condition will be

reflected in the scoring of this criterion.• Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives• Soundness of priority addressed• Relevance training/expected results

The proposal meets the objectives and priorities of the Call, with well chosentopics and a good split of beginnerladvanced sessions. Follow-up could be Criteria I:further improved. Threshold 15/30

22.3

2. Quality and efficiency• Appropriateness of the methodology and timeframe• Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants

• Quality of the partnerships as a whole (only if relevant)• Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be


The projects details well the seminars and conferences to be carried out and these are Criteria II:evenly spaced between themselves. The topics are well defined and their selection was Threshold 15/30

done in collaboration with the Italian Judicial Institutions. Interactivity of the proposedtraining solution is also good. Setting up networks between French and Italian judges

23could be better organised.


[PioPosal No. : 2013-3801-06 Proposal Title: Italian Competition Authority


• Costs represent a good value for money• Costs of human resources (staff, speakers) are appropriate etc.

The proposal’s budaet is overall balanced, hut some ad ,stments may he needed to makeit in etc cost e7t& live. t’Of nsiancm

Criteria Ill:interpretation costs are very h,ah Threshold 10/20Travel expenses and accommodation ot staff and participants seem not to refiecL the

market pricesStaff costs could be reduced 13,2Costs related to printjobs appear excessive


The project has a fair disseminationstrategy, however it could be better described andseems to be limited to the distribution of the presentations.

Criteria IV:

5,2



The project has a fair EU added value and scope. An additional number of Criteria V:French judges participating would be welcomed.

5,2

Total score(l+lI+lll+IV+V)

Threshold60/100

69


Reduce Interpretation costsAssess the travel expenses and accommodation of staff and participants, possibly providing market


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-06 Proposal Title: Italian Competition Authority

estimates- reduce staff costs- Detail costs related to print jobs, providing market offers


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-07 Proposal Title: Interpreting economic evidence in the‘competition law cases


SCORINGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-JO. Hafmarkc mm’ be given.Interpretation of the scores:0—The proposal faiLc to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformationI — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signflcant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would he necessai4 Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion vemy well, although cerlain imnprovements are still possible.5 — Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.

1. Relevance

The proposal matches well the objectives of the call for proposals. The coverage ofeconomic evidence in competition law cases is in particular very relevant.Expected results and impact on target group are relevant though limited to the smallnumber of participants.


24

2. Quality and efficiency

The methodology is relevant insofar as it comprises case-studies and a networkingmoment at the end of the 1st day. Nevertheless, 90 minutes dedicated to a mock-hearingseem to be extremely short.It has a credible timeline for its implementation.However, there is no monitoring system.The project does not seem to plan any legal practitioners as speakers. Criteria Il:

Threshold 15/30

18


iposal No. : 2013-3801-07 Proposal Title: Interpreting economic evidence in thecompetition law cases

3. Cost effectiveness

The budget is expensive in view of the expected number of participants, the number of

training days and the scope of the action, without any translation or interpretation.

Category I staff costs and speakers fees are not reasonable at all and exceed by far the

average costs for similar projects.Moreover, the prices of the books and the planned material are also expensive.

The costs of room renting are too expensive. Criteria Ill:

Average flight tickets are too expensive and the same applies to hotel costs. Threshold 10/20

10

4. Dissemination

There is no dissemination plan.The project only counts on the benefit for the participants.

Criteria IV:

4,3

5. EU dimension

The project targets participants from all EU Member States and aims in particular at

attracting judges from nationalities, which are less represented (though the selection

process is not described).

Criteria V:

7

Total score(l+ll+IN+IV+V)

Threshold 60/1 00

63.5

Any other remarkse.g. recommendations for adjustments, only if the proposal is above threshold (including


The project is of good quality, however too expensive. If awarded, the budget must be reduced,

For example:staff COStS and speakers fees are not reasonable at all

2

Training of National Judges Evaluation summary report:

________________________________

Call for proposals 2013[iposal No. : 2013-3801-07 Proposal Title: Interpreting economic evidence in the

competition law cases

average flight and hotel costs are too expensiveroom rental is too high,


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-8 Proposal Title: -

-y


SCORINGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-10. Ha(fmarks may be given.Interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal flu/s to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformationI — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2— Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signficant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well although improvements would be necessary,4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very we1i although certain improvements are still possible.5— Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.

1. RelevanceNote: when a proposal only partially addresses the objectivess, this condition will bereflected in the scoring of this criterion.


[Evaluators’ comments will be inserted hereJThe applicant addressed very well the priority areas: the economic principles inapplying EU competition law is a crucial skill for judges dealing with competition Criteria I:cases. Threshold 15/30

The structure and proposed content of the seminar seems to be well designedand targeted specifically towards the needs of judges. The actual impact will of 28course depend on the personalities of the lectors and other details, which are notyet specified. Nevertheless, the past experience of the organiser with this type oftraining activities should guarantee very good quality.Very good practical approach based on review of cases.



[Evaluators’ comments will be inserted herej Criteria II:The methodology is very good and well targeted towards the needs of judges. Threshold 15/30Distribution of tasks seems to be balanced while monitoring could be improved. 26


[proPosal No. : 2013-3801-8 Proposal Title:


The overall budget is reasonable and representing a good value for money. Criteria Ill:

However the accommodation expenses could be reduced in view of the Threshold 10/20

actual length of the training seminar. 18


[Evaluators’ comments will be lnse,led herej

Very good dissemination strategy.

Criteria IV:

9



[Evaluators’ ccmrnents will be inserted herej Criteria V:Very good EU value and all member states and candidate countries involved.

9

Total score(l+ll+lll÷IV+V)

Threshold60/100

90

Any other remarkse.g. recommendations for negotiation, only if the proposal is above threshold (includingrecommendations for the budget)Accommodation expenses could be reduced in view of the actual length of the training seminar.[Evaluators’ comments will be inserted herej

2


[roPosai No. : 2013-3801-9 Proposal Title: Ltviri,’k4 i$O


SCORINGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-JO. Halfmarks may be given.Interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be fudged due to missing or incompleteinformationI — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signfIcant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well although certain improvements are still possible.5 Excellent. The proposal successfidlv addresses all relevant aspects ofthe criterion in question.shortcomings are minor.

1. RelevanceNote: when a proposal onlypartially addresses the objectivess, this condition will bereflected in the scoring of this criterion.


[Evaluators’ comments will be inserted herd

The overall impression is that this is a rather general type of educational training. Criteria I:The proposed schedule of seminars is targeted to improve Portuguese and Spanish Threshold 15/30judges’ knowledge of EU competition law, covering basic aspects of antitrust law and, to

24a limited extent, a basic overview of state aid rules (somewhat confusingly, state aid lawis presented as part of antitrust law).



4fEvaluators’ comments will be inserted herd Criteria II:The scope is too general and the methodology may is too academic for the needs of Threshold 15/30

judges. 21


[iosal No. : 2013-3801-9 Proposal Title:


(Evaluators comments will be inserted herdThe forward budget is disproportionally low given the number of judges to be trained andthe number of seminar days planned. Criteria Ill:No specific budget allocated to the permanent Observatory on competition law. Threshold 10/20

11


[Evaluators comments will be inserted herd

Fair implementation of the dissemination strategy.Criteria IV:

6



(Evaluators comments will be inserted here) Criteria V:

Limited target group.5

Total score(l+ll+lll+IV+V)

Threshold60/100

67

Any other remarkse.g. recommendations for negotiation, only if the proposal is above threshold (includingrecommendations for the budget)There is no explanation, about how you will finance the observatory and its scope, please specify in yourproposal.[Evafuators comments will be inserted herej

2

Training of National Judges Evaluation summary report:Call for proposals 2013Proosal No. : 2013-3801-10 Proposal Title: 3u(’u’ot f4c Lt o

j


SCORiNGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-10. HaUmarks mciv be given.interpretation of the scores:U —The proposal falls to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformation1 — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signfican1 weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessaly.4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.5 — Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.



[Evaluators’ comments will be inserted herd

The proposed series of seminars is aimed at general improvement of Slovak and Czech Criteria I:judges’ knowledge of EU competition law. The scope covers an introductory general Threshold 15/30seminar (which is useful but rather theoretical, in particular its focus on ‘the methodologyof acquiring proper knowledge and information’, plus t gives a disproportionate weight tothe Commission’s database of national judgments).

20Three specialised seminars, are to be dedicated to narrow aspects (interplay with PR,regulation of supermarkets) or are defined not very clearly (private enforcement,analysis of a case having nothing to do with private enforcement, etc.). Many of thesuggested topics are Slovakia-specific, thus less relevant for Czech judges.Nevertheless the overall scope of the project is solid and well covered.



[Evaluators’ comments will be inserted herd Criteria II:Average methodology, a certain discrepancy between the overly theoretical general part Threshold 15/30of the training and the overly specialised (and Slovakia-specific) other parts of the 16series.


ioosal No, : 2013-3801-10 Proposal Title:




[Evaluators’ comments will be inserted herej

Whereas the budget can overall be seen as reasonable, the value for money may be Criteria Ill:

debatable given the somewhat imbalanced structure. Partial aspects are overestimated Threshold 10/20

(47% of the budget allocated to speakers fees, 4500 allocated to pens, 4000 for the 13 5cartridges etc).



[Evaluators’ comments will he inserted here]

Very good dissemination strategy.Criteria IV:

8




jEvaiuators’ comments will be inserted herej Criteria V:

Fair coverage, well targeted. 6

Total score(l+ll+Ill+IV+V)

Threshold60/1 00

63,5



[Evaluators’ comments will be inserted here)

2


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-11 Proposal Title : J c.Loi{ (ji)


SCORINGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-JO. Hafmarks may be given.Interpretation alike scores:0 —The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinJbrmationI — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signficant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.5—Excellent. The proposal succesfullv addresses all relevant aspects of/he criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor,



fEvaluators comments will be inserted here]

The proposal is not clearly presented and it contains many contradictions. Criteria I:Part of the proposal is out of the scope of the call and does not address the priority Threshold 15/30areas.The title refers to state aid rules but the content refers to antitrust rules, moreover withwrong references to the relevant articles of the treaty. 10



fEvaluators’ comments will be inserted herd Criteria II:Threshold 15/30

Incomprehensible methodology and unclear structure. It has a very limited target group 9with an unclear structure, rather academic approach.Reference to the creation of a network between RO and IT to exchange in formationwhich is partially not relevant. One of the topics of the conference refers to judicialcooperation in civil and finance matters, which is not directly relevant for competitionlaw.


posal No. : 2013-3801-11 Proposal Title:


• Costs represent a good value for money• Costs of human resources (staff, speakers) are appropriate etc.

fEvaluators’ comments will be inserted herejCost of staff overestimated does reflect the market prices.The number of travel for some speakers exceeds the needs. 14 trips are foreseen for 4 Criteria Ill:conferences. . Threshold 10/20Given the poor quality of the proposal and very unclear objectives to achieved, the

proposal is not suitable to provide good value for money.


fEvaluators’ comments will be inserted hemj

Implementation and dissemination strategy is poorly described and insufficiently

structured, Criteria IV:

4



[Evaluators’ comments will be inserted herd Criteria V:

Poor geographical scope, training activity between one city and one Member States.The expected results are not clearly defined. 4

Total score(l+ll+III+IV+V)

Threshold60/100

33


(Evaluators’ comments will be inserted herej

2


[Proposal No. : 2013-3801-12 Proposal Title:


SCORINGScores must he in the range 0-5 or 0-10. Hafmarks may be given.Interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformation1 — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signfIcant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well although improvements would be necessary.4— Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.5 — Excellent. The proposal succesjul1v addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.



(Evaluators’ comments will be inserted hereJ

The proposal concerns two seminars. The first one focuses on private enforcement of Criteria I:Article 102, but also of the German equivalent provisions (to this extent, there is less Threshold 15/30direct relevance to the objectives and priorities of the call). Nevertheless it is very wellfocused. The second seminar has two goals (overview of recent European and Germancase law + English language seminar) which are relevant for the targeted group.



(Evaluators’ comments will be inserted herd Criteria II:Threshold 15/30

The methodology is very well structured. Languages training could be better integrated. 24,5


[Eiosai No. : 2013-3801-12 Proposal Title:




fEvaluators comments will be inserted here?

The forward budget is appropriate and represents good value for money. Criteria Ill:Threshold 10/20

15



[Evaluators comments will he inserted herd

Very good dissemination for targeted group and the general public.Criteria IV:

8



fEvaluators comments will be inserted heroj Criteria V:

Appropriate EU coverage. 6 5

Total score(I+ll+IlI+IV+V)

Threshold60/1 00

77



fEvaluators comments will be inserted heroj


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-13 Proposal Title: 1Evaluation Summary Report (ESR)

SCORINGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-10. Hallmarks may be given.interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal falls to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinjbrmationI — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signJIcant weaknesses.3 — Good ihe proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would he necessamy.4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible,5— Excellent. The proposal successfulh addresses all relevant aspects o/the criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.

1. RelevanceNote: when a proposal onlypartially addresses the objeclii’ess, this condition will bereflected in the scoring of this criterion.


[Evaluators’ comments witi be inserted hereJ

The proposal aims at providing excellent advanced-level training focusing on 3 areas: Criteria I:key challenges in application of Articles 101 and 102, private enforcement and Threshold 15/30interaction between courts and the EC and NCAs.

30



[Evaluators’ comments will be inserted herd Criteria II:Threshold 15/30

Highly experienced speakers form the judiciary. Very good methodology and timeframe 28suitable.


posal No. : 2013-3801-13 Proposal Title:




(Evaluators’ comments will be Inserted here)

Very good value for money. Criteria Ill:Threshold 10/20

18



Evaluators comments will be inserted here)

Excellent dissemination strategy, very well developed network.Criteria IV:

9




fEvaluators’ comments will be inserted bore) Criteria V:

Excellent European coverage. 10

Total score(I+ll+llI+lV+V)

Threshold60/1 00

95



[Evaluators’ comments will be inserted herej


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-14 Proposal Title : European on-line competitio]dictionary


SCORINGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-10. HaUmarks may be given.Interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteir/i)rma1ionI — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inhereni weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signqicant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvemeni.c would be necessary.4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain i,nprovements are still possible.S — Lvcellent. The proposal .cuccessfiuiiv addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.

1. Relevance

Overall objective definition; although relevant for the scope of the call for proposals; wasgeneric. Objectives are identified by reference (copylpaste) fro, the call for proposals.The data-base is not specifically directed towards the EU judiciary which is the maintarget of dissemination, which will instead be persons registered at the webpage of theUniversity.


15,7

2. Quality and efficiency

It is extremely ambitious to obtain entries concerning all Member States to the samelevel of accuracy as done in the past with the Italian entries already published.Contributors to most other Member States have not been identified. There is no quality-insurance process to evaluate the quality of what will be elaborated. There is nodescription of the functionalities or technical features of the webpage. They have notidentified means to update the entries so as to keep them relevant to the evolving Criteria II:legislative and jurisprudential legal framework. Threshold 15/30

9,3


[Pioposal No. : 2013-3801-14 Proposal Title : European on-line competiti]

L dictionary

3. Cost effectiveness

Translation costs are underestimated. It is difficult to assess appropriateness of the

other costs envisaged in the absence of credible specifications concerning the website

and other aspects of the project.

Criteria Ill:Threshold 10/20

7

4. Dissemination

The data-base is not specifically directed towards the EU judiciary which is the main

target of dissemination, which will instead be persons registered at the webpage of the

University. Applicants have not identified means to update the entries so as to keep

them relevant to the evolving legislative and jurisprudential legal framework.

Criteria IV:

3,7

5. EU dimension

It is not specified how the geographical spread sought will be achieved. The

realistic and accounted for part of the project almost exclusively outlines Italian

contributors. Although there may be EU added value through dissemination in

English of contents already available in Italian; the way to achieve added value

through entries from other Member States has not been shown. Criteria V:

3,7

Total score(l+Il+llI+IV+V)

Threshold60/100

39,5




ioposal No. : 2013-3801-15 Proposal Title :15. Escuela Judicial (Fines andI Crimes), Spain


SCORiNGI Scores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-10. Halfmarks ma be given.Interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformationI — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signficant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.5 — LxcellenL The proposal successjully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.



The proposal matches the priorities and objectives of the call.Nevertheless, to consider covering the European Public Prosecutor in the course isirrelevant because the EPPO is not in force yet and in any case it would not deal with Criteria I:competition law issues.

Threshold 15/30It is not clear from the proposal how many participants will benefit by the networkingopportunities during the seminars, in comparison with the total number of participants in

26 3the e-learning course.



In general, the approach is appropriate and well described. The project is well balanced Criteria II:between individual and collaborative sessions. Threshold 15/30Regarding speakers, the description is too vague and the selection criteria are notindicated.

25,2There should be a better balance regarding lectures and case-studies to ensureinteractivity.The quality control process to ensure the quality of the implementation of the project isnot described.The project schedule is not detailed enough.


Pposal No, : 2013-3801-15 Proposal Title :15. Escuela Judicial (Fines aid1I Crimes), Spain




Budget is appropriate. The cost I quality ratio is good.

The use of CDs to disseminate material is not a relevant tool anymore.

Translation costs for the publication seem to be expensive. Criteria Ill:Threshold 10/20

15,7

4. Dissemination 1• Appropriate and effective dissemination


The use of the Internet is an efficient tool.

Nevertheless, the dissemination plan is not clear when mentioning the use of the EJTN.

The project mentions that each participant will take part in spreading further the training

however there is no explanation regarding how this would take place. Criteria IV:/107,3




Very good EU dimension. Criteria V:/10

8,7

Total score(l+ll+lll+IV+V)

Threshold60/1 00

83



There is a discrepancy between the announced number of participants (70) and the number indicated in the

budget (50). There should be a better balance regarding lectures and case-studies to ensure interactivity.

2


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-15 Proposal Title :15. Escuela Judicial (Fines andCrimes), Spain

The quality control process to ensure the quality of the implementation of the project is not enoughdescribed.The project schedule is not detailed enough. The use of CDs to disseminate material is not a relevant toolanymore, consider alternative method. Reduce considerably number of working days staff. Provide marketprices for translations to ensure best quality/price ratio Reconsider travel prices of Spanish participantsReconsider number of days of work for speakers.


[iposai No. : 2013-3801-16 Proposal Title :16. Escuela Judicial (Initial

L_ Training), Spain


SCORLVGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-10. Halfmarks may be given.

Interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete

information1 — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.

2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are sign/icant weaknesses.

3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well although improvements would be necessary.

4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.

5 — Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. An

shortcomings are minor.

1. RelevanceNote: when a proposal only partially addresses the objectives, this condition will be

reflected in the scoring of this criterion.

• Soundness of concept, and quality of objectives

• Soundness of priority addressed• Relevance training/expected results

The proposal matches the objectives and priorities of the call.

Nevertheless, it is surprising that the curriculum of the Escuela Judicial does not already

cover competition law in initial training.More specifically, to consider covering the European Public Prosecutor in the course is

irrelevant because the EPPO is not in force yet and in any case it would not deal with

competition law issues.


2. Quality and efficiency• Appropriateness of the methodology and timeframe

• Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants

• Quality of the partnerships as a whole (only if relevant)

• Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be


25

In general, the project is of good quality.There is an appropriate approach and methodology. A good level of active participation

and interaction between participants is ensured via the workshops.

Regarding speakers, the description is too vague and the selection criteria are not

indicated.The programme does not seem to contain any elements regarding the economics

theories on which competition law is based.

The description of the training material is not precise: what will be published at the end

of the project?The project schedule is poorly detailed.


25

Training of National Judges Evaluation summary report:Call for pro_ppsais 2013

Proposal No. : 2013-3801 -16 Proposal Title :16. Escuela Judicial (IniaITraining), Spain



Very good EU dimension.


The budget seems to be appropriate on the whole.The profile of the project director is not clear: 100 euros per day is low and may notcorrespond to the profile of a project director. It does not seem to be realistic.Translation costs seem to be excessive.

Criteria Ill:Threshold 10/20

15,7


Plan to further disseminate via the European e-Justice Portal, the EJTN, etc. is good.CDs are not the most appropriate tool of dissemination nowadays.

Criteria IV:

8

Criteria V:

9

Total score(1+11+1 ll+IV+V)

Threshold60/100

82,5


The description of the training material is not enough precise: describe what will be published at the end ofthe project.


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-16 Proposal Title :16, Escuela Judicial (InitialTraining), Spain

The project schedule should be better detailed.The profile of the project director is not clear considering his/her salary (100 euros per day) it may notcorrespond to the profile of a project director Please specify its rol&profileThe use of COs to disseminate material is not a relevant tool anymore consider alternative methodReduce considerably number of working days staff Provide market prices for translations and interpretationto ensure best quality/price ratio Reconsider travel prices of Spanish participants Reconsider number ofdays of work for speakers.


[ProPosal No. : 2013-3801-17 Proposal Title: 17. University of Valencia, Spain


SCVRINGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-JO. HaUmarks may be given.Interyretation of the scores:0—The proposal fai1 to address the criterion under exatnination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformation1 — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signfIcant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.4— Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very welI although certain improvements are still possible.5— Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.



The applicant didnt show a good understanding of the objectives and priorities of thecall beyond copying the text of the call for proposals.Cooperation and networking aspects are poorly demonstrated. Criteria I:

Threshold 15130

13



The timeline seems to be appropriate. There is good balance between individual and Criteria II:collective work. The inclusion of economics concept is interesting. Threshold 15/30The project includes the introduction of tests to measure pre- and post- trainingknowledge but likely to be effective to be used among judges. I 5,7Expertise choice is limited to Spanish people.The proposal is not well written and sometimes difficult to understand.Selection of trainers and trainees is not well described.


[PPosal No. : 2013-3801 -17


Proposal Title: 17. University of Valencia, Spain




Extremely poor EU dimension.

Total score(1+11+111+ IV+V)

Threshold60/100

43






In general, the budget is not detailed enough.

Speakers fees seem to be excessive. Moreover, there is no indication regarding the

profile of these speakers.Criteria Ill:

Threshold 10/20

8,7



The dissemination plan is not presented.

The results and possible impact are not clear.

No Internet tools are envisaged. Criteria IV:

3

Criteria V:

2,7

[Evaluators comments will be inserted here?


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-18 Proposal Title: 18. University of Naples Parthenope,Italy


SCORINGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-10. HaUmarks may be given.Interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformationI — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signUlcant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well although improvements would be necessaiy.4

—Verj Goad. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.

5 — Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.

1. RelevanceNote. when a proposal only partially addresses the objectives, this condition will bereflected in the scoring ofthis criterion.


The proposal matches the objectives and priorities of the call. The training wilt beorganised in a multi-lingual context: 3 languages, FR, IT and EN. Harmonisation inprocedural rules and exchanges of best practices are considered. Criteria I:However, the proposal targets only 20 participant judges, and not only judges. Threshold 15/30

22,7



There is a mechanism planned to ensure the quality of the project. Criteria II:However, the duration of the project is too long. Threshold 15/30The methodology is not sufficiently specified.The project plans seminars but no workshops and will lack interactivity among 21,5participants.The proposal seems to be more an academic project opened to lawyers and PhDstudents than training for judges as such.


Proposal No. : 2013-3801 -18 Proposal Title: 18. University of Naples Parthenope]

Italy




The average cost forecast of the training of each judge per day is 3789 euros, which is

far beyond acceptable rates.The staff costs represent more than 60% of the project is not reasonable. Criteria Ill:

To award such a project would be a liability for the Commission. Threshold 10/20

2



The dissemination plan is well explained.However the impact will be very low because the project targets only 20 judges.

Criteria IV:

6,8

5. EU dimension —

• Contribution, at the European and/or international level, to the expected results


Two Member States are involved, however they are coming from Member States, which Criteria Vare usually targeted by this call for proposals and are not among the priority countries.

Experts from other Member States are forecast.

4,7

Total score(l+ll+IIl+lV+V)

Threshold60/1 00

57,5



(Evaluatois’cornments will he inserted here]

2


ioposal No. : 2013-3801-19 Proposal Title: 19. Catholic University of PortugaIPortugal


SCORINGScores must he in the range 0-5 or 0-10. Half marks may be given.Interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformationI — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses,2 — Fair. Win/c the proposal broad/v addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements it’ould be necessary.4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although (‘ertain improvements are still possible.5— Excellent. The proposal successful/v addresses all relevant aspects oft/ic criterion in question. Anyshorrcomnmgs are minor.



Project is sufficiently well described though the objectives could better be explained.Target group selection will be made at a later stage. Usage of Internet tools(such as thevirtual campus) considered to be good as well. Criteria I:

Threshold 15/30

24,2

2. Quality and efficiency• Appropriateness of the methodology and timeframe• Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants• Quality of the partnerships as a whole (only if relevant>• Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be

committed (staff, equipment ...>

Methodology well defined; no description of the evaluation methodology though. It is Criteria II:more a general, introductory training rather than an in-depth training for the target Threshold 15/30

audience. Training needs are based on a survey carried out under the main 25stakeholders (judges). Methodology (virtual conference, workshops, trainers) isconsidered sufficient.


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-19 Proposal Title : 19. Catholic University of Portugal,Portugal


Budget is adequate; costs staff well balanced in relation to the training activities and theexpected outcome. Criteria Ill:

Threshold 10/20

19


Dissemination strategy not sufficiently detailed. The marketing strategy and collaborationwith national institutes was described in rather vague terms. In the long term, this trainingcould generate results. Strong point was the intended update of the database containingan overview of case law, Maintenance of the case-law database, in particular the national Criteria IV:case law and the case law from other Member States is considered to be a weak point.

7,3

5. EU dimension• Contribution, at-the European and/or international level, to the expected results


Low coverage of the EU MS (two MS that already benefitted largely in thepast from the program). Criteria V:

5,7

Total score(l÷ll+lll+IV+V)

Threshold60/1 00

81

Any other remarkse.g. recommendations for negotiation, only if the proposal is above threshold (includingrecommendations for the budget) Dissemination strategy should be planned The marketing strategyand collaboration with national institutes should be defined in a structured way


Proposal No, : 2013-3801-20 Proposal Title : 20. EILF Of the University ofLisbon, Portugal


SCORINGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-JO. Halfmarks may be given.Interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinformation1 — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.4 — Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible.5 — Excellent. The proposal successfidlv addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are minor.



Project is well explained, based on solid previous experience and clearly addresses therequirements of the Call. Sustainability of the results among the members of the targetaudience is likely to be achieved by this action, Strong point is the attention given to theeconomy theory, which needs to be regulated by competition law. ri eria

Threshold 15/30

26,7

2. Quality and efficiency• Appropriateness of the methodology and timeframe• Quality and relevant experience of the individual participants• Quality of the partnerships as a whole (only if relevant>• Appropriateness of the allocation and justification of the resources to be


Good methodology, criteria for the selection of speakers well applied (professors, judges, Criteria Il:officials). Evaluation activities will be developed in the light of previously held actions. The Threshold 15/30emphasis on the new Portuguese competition law is a strong point as well, Applicant is 25 3encouraged to further elaborate the program: the current lacks details for the projectschedule.


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-20 Proposal Title : 20. EILF Of the University ofLisbon, Portugal


Total number or participants varies according to the section of the application. Costs forcoffee-breaks is rather high: the budget for coffee suggests that the organiser is able to Criteria Ill:achieve profits on this part of the budget. Threshold 10/20

18,3


Maintenance of the case-law database, in particular the national case law and the case lawfrom other Member States are considered to be a weak point. The overall disseminationstrategy and plan is considered to be clear. Criteria IV:

8,3



EU coverage is good, but the applicant and the Member State already Criteria V:benefitted from support under this program.

___________

5

Total score(l+Il+IIl+IV+V)

Threshold60/100

83,5

Any other remarks/ e.g. recommendations for negotiation, only if the proposal is above threshold (including

/ recommendations for the budget) The project schedule (total days of working days) could be

Lreduced and the budget for the coffee breaks needs to be justified or adjusted.

Signatures of evaluators


[PiPosal No. : 2013-3801 -21 Proposal Title : 21. Libera Foudation 1Evaluation Summary Report (ESR)

SCORINGScores must be in the range 0-5 or 0-JO. Half marks may be given.Interpretation of the scores:0 —The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incompleteinfbrmation1 — Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner or there are serious inherent weaknesses.2 — Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are signifIcant weaknesses.3 — Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary.4— Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion vet)’ well, although certain improvements are still possible.S Excellent. The proposal succesfullv addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Anyshortcomings are ninor.

1. RelevanceNote: when a proposal only partially addresses the objectivess, this condition will bereflected in the scoring of’this criterion.

• Soundness of concept, and quaHty of objectives• Soundness of priority addressed• Relevance training/expected results

The application seems to consist of a copy of the specifications, but from the Criteria I’description of the action, it could be understood that the applicant has fairly well Threshold’ 15/30taken account of the objectives and priorities of the Call. The proposedimplementation of the action however generates more question marks and is notas clear as might be expected, Impact of the results only consists of a publication 18,2and is not sufficiently detailed.



The methodology of the training is not detailed, but there is a serious risk of bias Criteria II:due to the fact that most of the trainers are from one Member State only and Threshold 15/30without specifying the background of the trainers. There are no Internet tools 15,7used in the methodology. No information is given on the subjects that will betaught during this training. Insufficient marketing strategy. Small number ofjudges to be trained.


Proposal No. : 2013-3801-21 Proposal Title : 21. Libera Foudation 13. Cost effectiveness

• Budget appropriate in relation to expected results



Cost of staff assigned to the action represents more than half of the budget and

can be considered excessive. The expected results are not well described and it is

therefore difficult to assess to what extent the objectives of the action will be Criteria Ill:

achieved. Threshold 10/20

11



Description of the dissemination strategy is poor. There will only be one publication. The

long term perspective of the results—impact is missing. No use of web tools for

disseminating the results or the course material Criteria IV:

4



It involves trainers from more than one Member State, whereas the participants only come Criteria V:from one Member State. The action looks more a Twinning’ project than a training for

judges. 4,3

Total score(l÷ll+lll+IV+V)

Threshold60/100

53



evaluation summary report (esr) - european parliament · evaluation summary report: call for...

Documents