Call for proposals for SO 2.4 and 2.

Evaluation Criteria Phase 1 - ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE AND ELIGIBILITY CHECK

The objective of this phase of evaluation is to:

- identify missing or incorrect elements in the application form,
- verify the eligibility of submmitted application prior to quality assessment

The administrative compliance and eligibility assessment is a ‘yes or no’ process. This means that the assessment does not allow for any flexibility in the way the criteria are
applied. The non-fulfilment of one criterion leads to the ineligibility of the whole application.

Only the applications which received ”yes” to all the following eligibility questions will pass the eligibility check and reach the second step of the selection procedure

No. Criteria YES NO NOT APPLICABLE/OBSERVATIONS

The application form uploaded in the electronic system contains all the annexes and
1 documents requested in the Applicant Guide.

All sections of the application form and budget form and all the mandatory Annexes,
2 have been properly and accurately filled in, in English and are typed (documents
issued by third parties in other language are accompanied by their English translation –
in their entirety or only for the relevant provisions).
All mandatory annexes are signed and filled in, the standard format set by the
3 Applicant's Guide is observed (where the case)

The implementation period is in limits established within the Applicant Guide (does
not exceed the maximum project durations and should not be less than the minimum
4 duration period indicated in the Applicant Guide for the respective Priority/ Specific
objective/type of project).

The value of the financial support requested is in line with the limits indicated in the
Applicant Guide.
5

The percentage of the financial support requested from ERDF and state budgets are
within the limits indicated in the Applicant Guide
6
 The feasibility study/ Conceptual Design/work projects has been submitted (in
English) and is elaborated or updated earlier than one year before the deadline for
7 submission (for investment projects)

8 A Lead Partner is appointed among the project partners.

9 At least one partner from each side of the border is involved.

10
The maximum number of partners set by the Applicant's guide is observed.
No partner has benefited from a financing support from public funds for the same
project proposal (in terms of objectives, activities and results) and does not apply for
other funding programmes with this project unless it does not obtain financial support
under this Programme (for investment projects this provision refers to the same
11 infrastructure/ segment of infrastructure).

All partners are eligible organisations according with the Applicant’s Guide
(assessment based on the Project partner statement, Legal documents of the
12 applicants) and are observing the requirements set by the Applicant's Guide related

The partner(s) hold/s the land and/or building/ item of infrastructure/investment

under a concession/on long term contract/ in administration/ bailment contract/ rent
contract/ any other right under the real property law.
13

The partner(s) has/have the ownership/ concession/ long term contract/

administration agreement (only for public authorities)/ bailment agreement/ for at
least 5 years after the completion of the operation and the owner has given it’s
written agreement saying that the applicant may perform the investment on/ in the
relevant land/ building/ item of infrastructure for at least 5 years after the
14 completion of the operation or they submitted a declaration on own responsibility
regarding the ownership status of the land and/or building, electronic signed by the
legal representative (where the case).
 Declaration from the land and/or building/ item of infrastructure/investment owner
that the land and/or building/ item of infrastructure is:
- free of any encumbrances;
- not the object of a pending litigation;
- not the object of a claim according to the relevant national legislation has been
submitted or the own declaration (where the case).
15 Or they submitted a declaration on own responsibility regarding the ownership status
of the land and/or building, electronic signed by the legal representative (where the
case).

Documents related to the registration of the land and/or building/ item of

infrastructure/investment in the relevant public registers have been submitted.
16

The partners are the entities entitled to take action in the field/ fields addressed by
17 the project.

The partners have the capacity to ensure their own contribution and the financing for
non-eligible expenditures of the project; they must also have the capacity to ensure
18 the temporary availability of funds until they are reimbursed by the programme.

The project is in line with one of the specific objectives included in the call.
19

If part of the operation is to be implemented outside the programme area, it is within

the territory of the countries participating to the Programme, and the activities
contribute to the objectives of the programme, in the benefit of the programme area,
20 and are in line with the specific Applicant's Guide provisions.

The project was not physically completed or fully implemented before the application
for funding under the programme.
21
 At least 3 of the cooperation criteria are clearly fulfilled:
- mandatory criteria: joint development and joint implementation
and
22 - optional criteria: one/or both of the following: joint financing and joint staff.

The project complies with the EU and programme requirements regarding information
and publicity and the project includes provisions regarding information and publicity.
23

The project falls within the types of actions under the specific objective of the
24 programme.

The project including investments in infrastructure with expected lifespan of at least

5 years climate proofing in the sense of climate adaptation & resilience has submitted
25 the assessment of expected impacts of climate change, the partner declaration and
the independent verification report.
 EVALUATION CRITERIA - Phase 2 – QUALITY ASSESSMENT (TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL EVALUATION AND STATE AID INCIDENCE ASSESSMENT)

The objective of this phase of evaluation is to:

- assess the relevance and the feasibility of the project,
- use the result of the assessment as a basis for decision making,
- establish common understanding which is common ground for decision making,
- ensure transparency.

Quality assessment criteria are divided into two categories:

· Strategic assessment criteria - The main aim is to determine the extent of the project's contribution to the achievement of Programme objectives (including contribution to Programme indicators), by addressing joint or common needs of target group.

· Operational assessment criteria - The main aim is to assess the viability and the feasibility of the proposed project, as well as its value for money in terms of resources used versus results delivered.

Both categories strategic and operational criteria consist of assessment criteria clusters and have several assessment questions with sub-questions.

Weighting system for the assessment criteria clusters

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA CLUSTERS
STRATEGIC assessment criteria 64 points
Project relevance 20
Cross-border cooperation character and impact 15
Project intervention logic 14
Partnership relevance 10
Horizontal issues 5
OPERATIONAL assessment criteria 36 points
Work plan 15
Communication 4
Budget 17
TOTAL strategic criteria + operational criteria 100 points

MARK
Each point addressed will receive a
mark from 0 to 4

Criteria clusters / Assessment questions with sub-questions

Aplication form
Maximum score Weight of mark in the maximum score (see below)
section 0: not addressed at all,

1: weak,
2: average
3: good
4: excellent

Each point within a cluster is assessed and will received a mark which is than converted into points according to the weight of mark in the maximum score

Example for cluster 1 Project relevance: If point 1.The project addresses common territorial challenges of the Romania Bulgaria Programme or a joint asset of the Programme area - there is a real need for the project (well justified, reasonable, well explained) is
marked with 2, as average, than 1.5 points will be granted.
The total score for cluster is than calculated: 1.5 + 1 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 2= 17.50 points out of 20 points
 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

0 1 2 3 4
Mark awarded by assessor converted
Mark awarded by
into points based on the simulation
1. PROJECT RELEVANCE Maximum score assessor -
simulation
not addressed at
weak average good excellent
all

How well is a need for the project justified?

5 2.50 Weight of mark in the maximum score

1.The project addresses common territorial challenges of the Romania Bulgaria Programme or a joint asset of
the Programme area - there is a real need for the project (well justified, reasonable, well explained).
AF C.2.1 and C.2.2 3 1.50 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 2

2. The project clearly contributes to a wider strategy on one or more policy levels (EU / national / regional).
AF C.2.5 2 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2

To what extent will the project contribute to the achievement of Programme’s objectives and indicators?
(NB: If 0 points are awarded to one of the following criteria - 1.3;1.4; 1.5 - the AF will be rejected)
9 9.00 Weight of mark in the maximum score

3. The project overall objective clearly contributes to the achievement of the Programme priority specific
objective. (NB: If 0 points are awarded for this criterion the AF will be rejected)
AF C. 1 3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4

4. The project outputs clearly link to Programme output indicators and their contribution to Programme
AF C.4 Output
targets is sufficient. (NB: If 0 points are awarded for this criterion the AF will be rejected)
tables in work 3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4
packages
5. Project’s contribution to Programme result indicators is realistic and sufficient. (NB: If 0 points are
awarded for this criterion the AF will be rejected) AF C.5 3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4

How does the project build on existing practices?

6 6.00 Weight of mark in the maximum score

6. The project makes use of available knowledge and builds on existing results and practices.
AF C.2.7 2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4

7. The project tries to avoid overlaps and replications; there is evolution of ideas.
AF C.2.2 2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4

8. The project demonstrates new solutions that go beyond the existing practice in the sector/Programme
area/participating countries or adapts and implements already developed solutions
AF C.2.2 2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4

TOTAL POINTS FOR PROJECT RELEVANCE 20 17.50

0 1 2 3 4

Mark awarded by assessor converted

Mark awarded by
into points based on the simulation
2. CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION CHARACTER AND IMPACT Maximum score assessor -
not addressed at simulation
weak average good excellent
all

What added value does the cooperation bring? (NB: If 0 points are awarded to one of the following
criteria - 2.1; 2.2; 2.3 - the AF will be rejected) 15 15.00 Weight of mark in the maximum score

1. The importance of cooperation beyond borders for the topic addressed and a cross-border impact is clearly
demonstrated . (NB: If 0 points are awarded for this criterion the AF will be rejected)
AF C.2.3 5 5.00 0.00 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00 4
2.The results cannot (or only to some extent) be achieved without cooperation and have clear cross-border
impact. (NB: If 0 points are awarded for this criterion the AF will be rejected) AF C.2.3 5 5.00 0.00 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00 4

3.There is a clear benefit from cooperating for the project partners / target groups / project area /
Programme area . (NB: If 0 points are awarded for this criteria the AF will be rejected)
AF C.2.3 5 5.00 0.00 1.25 2.50 3.75 5.00 4

TOTAL POINTS FOR CROSS BORDER COOPERATION CHARACTER AND IMPACT 15 15.00

0 1 2 3 4

Mark awarded by assessor converted

Mark awarded by
into points based on the simulation
3. PROJECT INTERVENTION LOGIC Maximum score assessor -
not addressed at simulation
weak average good excellent
all

To what extent is project intervention logic plausible?

10 8.50 Weight of mark in the maximum score

1.Project specific objectives are specific, realistic and achievable.

AF C.4 Specific
objectives in work 2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4
packages
2. Are the project outputs and results contributing to Programme indicators?
SO 2.4:
- 0 - not addressed at all or address exclusively RCO87 - RCR84; (NB: If 0 points are awarded for this criterion
the AF will be rejected)
- 1 - weak and addressing only RCO84 - RCR104
- 2 - average and address RCO84 - RCR104 and RCO87 - RCR84
- 3 - good and address RCO26 - RCR35 and RCO84 - RCR104 or RCO87 - RCR84
- 4 - excellent and address all 3 pairs of indicators

SO 2.7:
- 0 - not addressed at all or address exclusively RCO87 - RCR84 (organizations); in this case the project is
rejected (NB: If 0 points are awarded for this criterion the AF will be rejected)
AF C.4, C.5, C.6, D 3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4
- 1 - weak and addressing only PSO3-PSR3 (pollution) or RCO 84-RCR 104 (tools)
- 2 - average and address RCO84 - RCR 104 (tools) and PSO3-PSR3 (pollution) and RCO87 - RCR84
(organizations)
- 3 - good and address RCO36-RCR 95 (green), PSO3-PSR3 (pollution) and RCO 84-RCR 104 (tools) or RCO87 -
RCR84 (organization)
- 4 - excellent and address all 4 pairs of indicators

3.Proposed project outputs are needed to achieve project specific objectives

AF C.4 Output
tables in work 2 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 1
packages
4. Project outputs and results that contribute to Programme indicators are realistic (it is possible to achieve
them with given resources – i.e. time, partners, budget - and they are realistic based on the quantification
provided) AF C.4, C.5, C.6, D 3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4

To what extent will project outputs have an impact beyond project life time? (NB: If 0 points are awarded
for criterion 3.4. the AF will be rejected). 4 4.00 Weight of mark in the maximum score
5. Project outputs are durable (the proposal is expected to provide a significant and durable contribution to
solving the challenges targeted) – if not, it is justified.
- the exit strategy of the project shall be considered, including the financial sustainability of the results, after
the project completion.

- the durability of the operations in case of investment in infrastructure or productive investment must be
ensured for 5 years since the project completion. No cessation or transfer of productive activity, no undue
advantage owing to change of infrastructure ownership and no substantial change in nature, objectives etc. AF C.8.2 2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4
are accepted. In case the provision is not observed, the project is rejected. (NB: If 0 points are awarded for
this criteria the AF will be rejected).

6. Project main outputs are applicable and replicable by other organisations/regions/countries outside of the
current partnership (transferability) – if not, it is justified.
AF C.8.3 2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4

TOTAL POINTS FOR INTERVENTION LOGIC 14 12.50

0 1 2 3 4
Mark awarded by assessor converted
Mark awarded by
into points based on the simulation
4. PARTNERSHIP RELEVANCE Maximum score assessor -
not addressed at simulation
weak average good excellent
all

To what extent is the partnership composition relevant for the proposed project?
10 10.00 Weight of mark in the maximum score

1. The project involves the relevant actors needed to address the territorial challenge/joint asset and the
objectives specified.
AF C.3 3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4

2. With respect to the project’s objectives the project partnership:

• is balanced with respect to the levels, sectors, territory
• consists of partners that complement each other. AF C.3 2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4

3. Partner organisations have proven experience and competence in the thematic field concerned, as well as
the necessary capacity to implement the project (financial, human resources, etc.)
AF B.1.6 3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4

4. All partners play a defined role in the partnership and the territory benefits from this cooperation.
AF C.3 2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4

TOTAL POINTS FOR PARTNERSHIP RELEVANCE 10 10.00

0 1 2 3 4

Mark awarded by assessor converted

Mark awarded by
into points based on the simulation
5. HORIZONTAL ISSUES Maximum score assessor -
simulation
not addressed at
weak average good excellent
all

5 5.00 Weight of mark in the maximum score

1. The project makes a positive contribution to programme horizontal principle equal opportunities and non-
discrimination & the principle of equality between men and women
AF C.7.6 1 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 4
2. The project makes a positive contribution to programme horizontal principle sustainable development, the
Paris Agreement and the "Do No Signficant Harm" principle
AF C.7.6 1 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 4

3. The project makes a positive contribution to the New European Bauhaus initiative

AF C.7.6 1 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 4

4. The project contributes to the to environmental protection and takes into consideration the potential
impacts of climate change (in case of investments in infrastructure with expected lifespan of at least 5 years
climate proofing in the sense of climate adaptation & resilience will be considered) AF C 4
2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4
Investments, C.7.6

TOTAL POINTS FOR HORIZONTAL ISSUES 5 5.00

TOTAL POINTS for the STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA:

PROJECT RELEVANCE points + CROSS BORDER COOPERATION CHARACTER AND IMPACT points + PROJECT INTERVENTION LOGIC
points + PARTNERSHIP RELEVANCE points + HORIZONTAL ISSUES points 64 60.00

OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

0 1 2 3 4

Mark awarded by assessor converted

Mark awarded by
into points based on the simulation
6. WORK PLAN Maximum score assessor -
simulation
not addressed at
weak average good excellent
all

To what extent is the work plan realistic, consistent and coherent?

15 15.00 Weight of mark in the maximum score

1. Proposed activities and deliverables are relevant and lead to planned outputs and results
AF C.4, C.5 3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4

2. Distribution of tasks among partners is appropriate (e.g. sharing of tasks is clear, logical, in line with
partners’ role in the project, etc.). AF C.4 Activities in
3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4
work packages

3. Time plan is realistic

3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4
AF C.6

3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4

4. Activities, deliverables and outputs are in a logical time-sequence. AF C.6

AF C.4 Investments 3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4

5. The importance of investments and their cross-border relevance is demonstrated to reach project
objectives (if applicable)

TOTAL POINTS FOR WORK PLAN 15 15.00

0 1 2 3 4

Mark awarded by assessor converted

Mark awarded by
into points based on the simulation
7. COMMUNICATION Maximum score assessor -
not addressed at simulation
weak average good excellent
all
To what extent are communication activities appropriate to reach the relevant target groups and
stakeholders? 4 4.00 Weight of mark in the maximum score

1. The communication objectives are relevant and are expected to contribute to project specific objectives AF C.4 Objectives
in work packages
2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4

2. Communication activities (and deliverables) are appropriate to reach the relevant target groups and AF C.4 Activities
stakeholders and deliverables in
work packages 2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4

TOTAL POINTS FOR COMMUNICATION

4 4.00

0 1 2 3 4
Mark awarded by assessor converted
Mark awarded by
into points based on the simulation
8. BUDGET Maximum score assessor -
not addressed at simulation
weak average good excellent
all

To what extent is the project budget used in accordance with the principles of economy, efficiency and
effectiveness?
The principle of economy concerns minimising the costs of resources. The resources used by the project
partnership for its activities should be made available in due time, in appropriate quantity and quality, and at
the best price.
The principle of efficiency concerns getting the most from the available resources. It is concerned with the
relationship between resources employed and outputs delivered in terms of quantity, quality and timing.
The principle of effectiveness concerns meeting the objectives and achieving the intended results. 17 17.00 Weight of mark in the maximum score

1.The budget allocated to the activities is in line with the project content and the costs are realistic.

AF E.3 3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4

2.Sufficient and reasonable resources are planned to ensure project implementation.

AF D.2 2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4

3.Financial allocation per cost category is in line with the work plan AF D.2 &E.3 2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4

4.The distribution of the budget per period is in line with the work plan.
AF D.4 3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4

5.The application of lump sums is appropriate and in line with the Programme rules. AF D.2 & E.3
2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4

6.The available information in the budget is transparent and sufficient. On that basis, the project budget
appears proportionate to the proposed work plan, project outputs and project's contribution to Programme
indicators aimed for. AF D.2&E.3 2 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 4

7.Sufficient and reasonable resources are planned for investments and equipment purchases (if applicable)
and their costs are realistic. AF D.2 & E.3
3 3.00 0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 4

TOTAL POINTS FOR BUDGET 17 17.00

TOTAL POINTS for the OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA: WORK PLAN points + COMMUNICATION points + BUDGET points 36
36.00

TOTAL SCORE of the PROJECT: QUALITY ASSESSMENT points + OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT points 100 96.00
 STATE AID INCIDENCE ASSESSMENT

The objective of this assessment is to check is the proposed activities fall under the state aid incidence.

In order to be considered State aid a measure has to fulfil all the criteria provided by the Article 107(1) of the TFEU, therefore a project assessment is necessary in relation to potential State aid. These criteria are cumulative, so if one of the State aid criteria is not met, the grant in
question does not constitute State aid. Also, if all the criteria defining State aid are met, the measure in question constitutes State aid and the project is proposed for rejection.

According to the provision of Article 107(1) of the TFEU “Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of
certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market”.
State aid is defined as an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities. Therefore, subsidies granted to individuals or general measures open to all enterprises are not covered by this prohibition and do not constitute State aid
(examples include general taxation measures or employment legislation).
To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features:
• there has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);
• the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry sectors, or to companies located in specific regions
• competition has been or may be distorted;
• the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States.
Before the State aid tests can be applied it is necessary to determine whether the following two aspects are present:
1. Is the beneficiary an 'undertaking'? An undertaking is defined as any entity, regardless of its legal status, which is engaged in economic (commercial/competitive) activity and where there is a market in comparable goods or services.
2. Is an undertaking engaged in economic activity? This is defined as offering goods and/or services on a given market and which could, at least in principle, be carried out by a private operator.

A grant awarded within the Interreg VI-A Romania-Bulgaria Programme might lead to State aid for the Beneficiary of the project, to its partners that are involved in the project based on the Partnership Agreement. There are even situations in which the project can result in State aid to the end users/target group.
Therefore, a State-aid assessment for each individual project is necessary in order to determine if the criteria defining State aid are met.
It is important to bear in mind that if one of the criteria is not met, the grant in question does not constitute State aid. The criteria, detailed in the Check-list below, are:
• 1. Is the project funded by State resources? The answer to this question is always “Yes” (see point 2 above).
• 2. Does the project awards an economic advantage to an undertaking?
• 3. Is the grant awarded selective? The answer is always “Yes”, as grants awarded following a call for proposals are always selective.
• 4. Does the project threaten to distort competition?
• 5. Does the project threaten to affect trade between Member States?

The state aid assessment is mandatory for all projects partners, target groups and activities.!!!

State aid check-list

Criteria Description Question Answer (Yes/No) Comments

1. State resources ERDF is considered to be granted through State resources or by the State, so for Interreg Programmes the answer is YES. For Interrreg Programmes is Yes Yes
2. Economic
advantage to an
undertaking

1. Is the Lead Partner or its’ partners an 'undertaking'?

The first step is to identify whether the (Lead) Partner represents an undertaking. This question resumes to ascertaining if the Lead partner or its’
- According to the State aid rules, an undertaking is any entity, irrespective of the type of legal organisation, which performs economic activities. partners are undertakings in the meaning of the State aid rules,
- The concept of an undertaking encompasses every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way in as the grant awarded is always an economic advantage.
which it is financed. See for instance: judgement of the Court of 23 April 1991 in case C-41/90, Klaus Hofner and Fritz Elser vs Macrotron GmbH Therefore, it is important to see if there is any commercial
- The classification of an entity as an undertaking is always relative to a specific activity. An entity that carries out both economic and non-economic activity involved, as this is the main factor defining an
activities is to be regarded as an undertaking only with regard to the former. Furthermore, the application of the State aid rules as such does not depend undertaking.
on whether the entity is set up to generate profits, as also non-profit entities can offer goods and services on a market too. Also, the State authorities An undertaking is defined as any entity, regardless of its legal
may themselves be considered as undertakings should they be involved in economic activities. status, which is engaged in economic (commercial/competitive)
For example a public authority (central or local) that provides goods or services for a price might be considered an undertaking. The same situation activity and where there is a market in comparable goods or
might occur in the case of an NGO providing training for a fee. services.
Economic activity means the supply of goods or services on a given market and which could, at least in principle, be carried out by private actors in
order to make profits.
Another examples of economic activities are:
2. Is an undertaking engaged in economic activity? This is
- health services that are not part of the national health service which are almost entirely based on the principle of solidarity – e.g. dentistry, patients
defined as offering goods and/or services on a given market and
transport services, etc.
which could, at least in principle, be carried out by a private
- funding to local authorities meant at providing renting at a lower price.
operator.
- the management of transport infrastructure.
3. Any products/services offered on a market?
Whenever the State acts in the exercise of its’ public powers, respectively the activity in question is a task that forms part of the essential functions of
the State or is connected with those functions by its nature, its aim and the rules to which it is subject, it is not to be considered an undertaking.
Example of non-economic activities:
- compulsory education;
- anti-pollution surveillance;
- standardisation activities;
- construction or railway infrastructure;
- general promotion of tourism in a region.

4. Does the measure/ grant award /financial support confer an

economic advantage (a benefit) which an undertaking would
not have obtained under normal market conditions? Or is
there no advantage, e.g. it is merely a service at market price
(e.g. obtained through public procurement or by a Service of
General Economic Interest (SGEI) provided the SGEI meets the
Altmark criteria)?
For example a service that is reimbursed at market price is not
conveying an advantage.-
The key issue is to consider whether, and under which conditions, the grant award/financial support favours certain undertakings by giving them an All studies or other results of the non-investment research and
economic advantage. development projects must be made available for free to all
In line with the case law of the European Courts, the concept of economic advantage under the State aid rules includes any advantage “which the interested individual or legal persons, in a non-discriminatory
recipient undertaking would not have received under normal market conditions”. way in order not to be considered an economic advantage
The Altmark judgement of the European Court of Justice concerning services of general economic interest also expressed the view that public 5. Is there any indirect advantage awarded to one or more
procurement procedures allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing the given services “at the least cost to the community”. undertakings?
Usually, a direct grant represents by itself an economic advantage. However, there are situations in which such grants do not confer a direct advantage.
The economic advantage may be avoided, for the projects that have as results research, IT tools/software and/or if training is involved, competing
undertakings in the relevant market will be able to/can use the project output (e.g. ICT tool/software, training course) in the same way and under the
same conditions as the lead partner, any of the project partners or the end users of the project. All undertakings in the market (will) have the same
benefit and no undue advantage will be/is given for anybody. This is the case when the outputs are transferable to the whole market and when they are
open-source, i.e. the source (e.g. source code, curricula) and certain other rights (e.g. content) normally reserved for copyright holders are provided
under a public license. This can be ensured, for example, by offering the results on the partner/project’s website.
It might also be the case for public services. If the service is not provided on a free basis by the authority itself, the Altmark criteria have to be taken
into account/
- The service has to be defined through a normative act (Law, Ordinance, Emergency Ordinance, Government Decision, Local Council Decision). The
definition has to include also the obligations attached to it, including the obligations related to the price.
- a technical and economic study in order to estimate the revenues and costs for the operation of the service and determining the parameters on the
basis of which the compensation will be calculated.
- the public service has to be entrusted by means of an official act (e.g. a contract);
- the economic analysis showing that the value of the compensation does not exceed the reasonable costs for the provision of the service.
- the project should provide that the final value of the compensation is determined by means of an independent audit of the financial reports. The audit
should also cover the opportunity and efficiency of costs and revenues.
In the case that SGEI is used for business infrastructure, the absence of profits might annul the advantage that the owner of the infrastructure receives
by the use of such infrastructure after the obligations end.

6. Are there indirect advantages awarded to other

undertakings and/or target group(s) of the project that are
understood as undertakings?

An advantage can be conferred on undertakings other than those to which State resources are directly transferred (indirect advantage). An indirect
advantage is present if the measure is designed in such a way so as to channel its secondary effects towards identifiable undertakings or groups of
undertakings. This is the case, for example, if the direct aid is, de facto or de jure, made conditional on the purchase of goods or services produced by
certain undertakings only. Also, the indirect advantage might occur, for example, in the following cases:
-business incubators established with State support if part of the aid is transferred by the recipient undertaking to the incubated companies (by means of
lower level of rent as compared to the market conditions, of services as accounting or law consultancy provided at lower fees that those available on the
market).
-building of infrastructure for the solely or main use of an undertaking. Public funding of infrastructure that is not meant to be commercially exploited is
in principle excluded from the application of the State aid rules.This concerns, for instance, infrastructure that is used for activities that the State
normally performs in the exercise of its public powers (for instance, military facilities, air traffic control in airports, lighthouses and other equipment for
the needs of general navigation including on inland waterways, flood protection and low water management in the public interest, police and customs)
or that is not used for offering goods or services on a market (for instance roads made available for free public
use).
-Such indirect advantages should be distinguished from mere secondary economic effects that are inherent in almost all State aid measures (e.g. through
an increase of output). For this purpose, the foreseeable effects of the measure should be examined from an ex ante point of view.
 7.If there are indirect beneficiaries, is there a selective nature
or all the potential undertakings can benefit?
Do the project activities offer an advantage in a selective way
to certain undertakings or categories of undertakings (acting as
indirect beneficiaries of the project activities)?
3. Selectivity 1. A measure is considered selective when it favours “certain undertakings or the production of certain goods”. Not all measures which favor economic Do the project results are made available for free to all
operators fall under the notion of aid, but only those which grant an advantage in a selective way to certain undertakings or categories of undertakings interested individual or legal persons, in a non-discriminatory
or to certain economic sectors. way?
2. An analysis of the selective nature is relevant only when there is an indirect advantage. For example, in the cases involving research, if the results of
the research are made available to a limited number of undertakings there might be a selective economic advantage granted to those undertakings. In
order to avoid the selectivity issues in such a case ensuring a sufficient promotion of the results, by means of publication in speciality magazines and/or
on the project’s web page.

8.Is there a competitive market for the product/service in

question?
Does the project distort or threaten to distort competition?

1. A measure granted by the State is considered to distort or threaten to distort competition when it is liable to improve the competitive position of the
4. Distortion of recipient compared to other undertakings with which it competes.
competition 2. For the case of the CBC, should all the other above conditions be fulfilled, this criteria is automatically met, with the exemption of the situation in
which the recipient is holding a legal monopoly.
A possible distortion of competition is excluded if the following cumulative conditions are met: (1) a service is subject to a legal monopoly (established
in compliance with EU law); (2) the legal monopoly not only excludes competition on the market, but also for the market, in that it
excludes any possible competition to become the exclusive provider of the service in question; (3) the service is not in competition with other services;
and (4) if the service provider is active in another (geographical or product) market that is open to competition, cross-subsidisation has to be excluded.

9.Is there a European market for the product/service in

question, or does it have a mere local nature?

1. Public support to undertakings only constitutes State aid under Article 107(1) of the Treaty insofar as it ‘affects trade between Member States’. In
that respect, it is not necessary to establish that the aid has an actual effect on trade between Member States but only whether the aid is liable to
affect such trade. In particular, the Union Courts have ruled that ‘where State financial aid strengthens the position of an undertaking as compared
5.Effect on trade with other undertakings competing in intra-[Union] trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by the aid.
between Member 2. The effect on competition might be only potential. For example, a State aid might inhibit a company from another Member State from opening a
States branch.
In order to assert that this criterion is not fulfilled, the project in question must have a mere local impact. For this, the following characteristics have to
be fulfilled
(a) the aid does not lead to demand or investments being attracted to the region concerned and does not create obstacles to the establishment of
undertakings from other Member States;
(b) the goods or services produced by the beneficiary are purely local or have a geographically limited attraction zone;
(c) there is at most a marginal effect on the markets and on consumers in neighbouring Member States;
Some examples are:
- swimming pools and other leisure facilities intended predominantly for a local catchment area;
- museums or other cultural infrastructure unlikely to attract visitors from other Member States;
- hospitals and other health care facilities aimed at a local population;
- news media and/or cultural products which, for linguistic and geographical reasons, have a locally restricted audience
- a conference centre, where the location and the potential effect of the aid on prices is unlikely to divert users from other centres in other Member
States;

Conclusion and decision

The project assessed does not have state aid incidence. / The project assessed has state aid incidence.

The project assessed is considered ACCEPTED /REJECTED for the state aid incidence verification.