DIRECTORATE-GENERAL RESEARCH & INNOVATION EUROPEAN ... · Grant Agreement number: 777431 — XLS...

Grant Agreement number: 777431 — XLS — H2020-INFRADEV-2016-2017/H2020-INFRADEV-2017-1

H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0

1

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERAL RESEARCH & INNOVATION

Open Innovation and Open ScienceResearch infrastructure

GRANT AGREEMENT

NUMBER — 777431 — XLS

This Agreement (‘the Agreement’) is between the following parties:

on the one part,

the European Union (‘the EU’), represented by the European Commission ('the Commission'),represented for the purposes of signature of this Agreement by Head of Unit, DIRECTORATE-GENERAL RESEARCH & INNOVATION , Open Innovation and Open Science , Administrationand finance, Pascale CID,

and

on the other part,

1. ‘the coordinator’:

ELETTRA - SINCROTRONE TRIESTE SCPA (ST), established in SS 14 KM 163.5,BASOVIZZA TRIESTE 34149, Italy, VAT number: IT00697920320, represented for the purposes ofsigning the Agreement by Chief Executive Officer & President, Alfonso FRANCIOSI

and the following other beneficiaries, if they sign their ‘Accession Form’ (see Annex 3 and Article 56):

2. EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN), established inROUTE DE MEYRIN CERN, GENEVA 23 1211, Switzerland,

3. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FACILITIES COUNCIL (STFC), established in PolarisHouse North Star Avenue, SWINDON SN2 1SZ, United Kingdom, VAT number: GB618367325,

4. SHANGHAI INSTITUTE OF APPLIED PHYSICS CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE(SINAP), established in JIALUO RD 2019, Shanghai 201800, China (People's Republic of), as‘beneficiary not receiving EU funding’ (see Article 9),

5. INSTITUTE OF ACCELERATING SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS (IASA), establishedin PANEPISTIMIOU 30, ATHINA 10024, Greece, VAT number: EL090250292,

6. UPPSALA UNIVERSITET (UU), established in VON KRAEMERS ALLE 4, UPPSALA 75105, Sweden, VAT number: SE202100293201,

7. UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE (UoM), established in PARKVILLEOFFICE OF THE VICECHANCELLOR, MELBOURNE 3010, Australia, as ‘beneficiary not receiving EU funding’ (seeArticle 9),

Associated with document Ref. Ares(2017)5818416 - 28/11/2017



2

8. AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION (ANSTO-AS),established in New Illawarra Road, LUCAS HEIGHTS 2234, Australia, as ‘beneficiary not receivingEU funding’ (see Article 9),

9. ANKARA UNIVERSITESI (UA-IAT), established in DOGOL CADDESI, TANDOGANANKARA 06100, Turkey, VAT number: TR0010323791,

10. LANCASTER UNIVERSITY (ULANC), established in BAILRIGG, LANCASTER LA1 4YW,United Kingdom,

11. VDL ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES GROUP EINDHOVEN BV (VDL ETG), establishedin ACHTSEWEG NOORD 5 AK-1 K113, EINDHOVEN 5651 GG, Netherlands, VAT number:NL006300686B01,

12. TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT EINDHOVEN (TU/e), established in GROENE LOPER 5,EINDHOVEN 5612 AE, Netherlands, VAT number: NL001956218B01,

13. ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI FISICA NUCLEARE (INFN), established in Via Enrico Fermi40, FRASCATI 00044, Italy, VAT number: IT04430461006,

14. KYMA SRL (Kyma), established in BASOVIZZA S.S. 14 KM 163.5, TRIESTE 34149, Italy,VAT number: IT01131640326,

15. UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA (SAPIENZA), established inPiazzale Aldo Moro 5, ROMA 00185, Italy, VAT number: IT02133771002,

16. AGENZIA NAZIONALE PER LE NUOVE TECNOLOGIE, L'ENERGIA E LOSVILUPPO ECONOMICO SOSTENIBILE (ENEA), established in LUNGOTEVERE GRANDEAMMIRAGLIO THAON DI REVEL 76, ROMA 000196, Italy, VAT number: IT00985801000,

17. CONSORCIO PARA LA CONSTRUCCION EQUIPAMIENTO Y EXPLOTACION DELLABORATORIO DE LUZ SINCROTRON (ALBA-CELLS), established in CARRER DELA LLUM 2-26, CERDANYOLA DEL VALLES BARCELONA 08290, Spain, VAT number:ESQ0801209H,

18. CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE CNRS (CNRS), establishedin RUE MICHEL ANGE 3, PARIS 75794, France, VAT number: FR40180089013,

19. KARLSRUHER INSTITUT FUER TECHNOLOGIE (KIT), established inKAISERSTRASSE 12, KARLSRUHE 76131, Germany, VAT number: DE266749428,

20. PAUL SCHERRER INSTITUT (PSI), established in ., VILLIGEN PSI 5232, Switzerland, VATnumber: CHE116133392MWST,

21. AGENCIA ESTATAL CONSEJO SUPERIOR DEINVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS(CSIC), established in CALLE SERRANO 117, MADRID 28006, Spain, VAT number:ESQ2818002D,

22. HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO (UH/HIP), established in FABIANINKATU 33, HELSINGINYLIOPISTO 00014, Finland, VAT number: FI03134717,




3

23. STICHTING VU (VU), established in DE BOELELAAN 1105, AMSTERDAM 1081 HV,Netherlands, VAT number: NL851029279B01,

24. UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE (USTR), established in Richmond Street 16, GLASGOWG1 1XQ, United Kingdom, VAT number: GB261339762,

Unless otherwise specified, references to ‘beneficiary’ or ‘beneficiaries’ include the coordinator.

The parties referred to above have agreed to enter into the Agreement under the terms and conditionsbelow.

By signing the Agreement or the Accession Form, the beneficiaries accept the grant and agree toimplement it under their own responsibility and in accordance with the Agreement, with all theobligations and conditions it sets out.

The Agreement is composed of:

Terms and Conditions

Annex 1 Description of the action

Annex 2 Estimated budget for the action

2a Additional information on the estimated budget

Annex 3 Accession Forms

Annex 4 Model for the financial statements

Annex 5 Model for the certificate on the financial statements (CFS)

Annex 6 Model for the certificate on the methodology




4

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................................. 12

ARTICLE 1 — SUBJECT OF THE AGREEMENT.......................................................................................12

CHAPTER 2 ACTION .................................................................................................................................................12

ARTICLE 2 — ACTION TO BE IMPLEMENTED ......................................................................................12

ARTICLE 3 — DURATION AND STARTING DATE OF THE ACTION....................................................12

ARTICLE 4 — ESTIMATED BUDGET AND BUDGET TRANSFERS.......................................................12

4.1 Estimated budget.................................................................................................................................. 12

4.2 Budget transfers....................................................................................................................................12

CHAPTER 3 GRANT .................................................................................................................................................. 12

ARTICLE 5 — GRANT AMOUNT, FORM OF GRANT, REIMBURSEMENT RATES AND FORMS OFCOSTS............................................................................................................................................12

5.1 Maximum grant amount....................................................................................................................... 12

5.2 Form of grant, reimbursement rates and forms of costs......................................................................12

5.3 Final grant amount — Calculation.......................................................................................................13

5.4 Revised final grant amount — Calculation......................................................................................... 15

ARTICLE 6 — ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE COSTS................................................................................15

6.1 General conditions for costs to be eligible.......................................................................................... 15

6.2 Specific conditions for costs to be eligible..........................................................................................16

6.3 Conditions for costs of linked third parties to be eligible................................................................... 21

6.4 Conditions for in-kind contributions provided by third parties free of charge to be eligible...............21

6.5 Ineligible costs......................................................................................................................................21

6.6 Consequences of declaration of ineligible costs.................................................................................. 22

CHAPTER 4 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES ........................................................................ 22

SECTION 1 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO IMPLEMENTING THE ACTION ................ 22

ARTICLE 7 — GENERAL OBLIGATION TO PROPERLY IMPLEMENT THE ACTION.........................22

7.1 General obligation to properly implement the action.......................................................................... 22

7.2 Consequences of non-compliance........................................................................................................ 22

ARTICLE 8 — RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION — THIRD PARTIES INVOLVED IN THEACTION.........................................................................................................................................23

ARTICLE 9 — IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION TASKS BY BENEFICIARIES NOT RECEIVING EUFUNDING...................................................................................................................................... 23

9.1 Rules for the implementation of action tasks by beneficiaries not receiving EU funding................... 23




5

9.2 Consequences of non-compliance........................................................................................................ 23

ARTICLE 10 — PURCHASE OF GOODS, WORKS OR SERVICES..........................................................24

10.1 Rules for purchasing goods, works or services................................................................................. 24

10.2 Consequences of non-compliance...................................................................................................... 24

ARTICLE 11 — USE OF IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIES AGAINSTPAYMENT..................................................................................................................................... 24

11.1 Rules for the use of in-kind contributions against payment.............................................................. 24


ARTICLE 12 — USE OF IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIES FREE OFCHARGE........................................................................................................................................25

12.1 Rules for the use of in-kind contributions free of charge..................................................................25


ARTICLE 13 — IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION TASKS BY SUBCONTRACTORS........................... 25

13.1 Rules for subcontracting action tasks................................................................................................ 26


ARTICLE 14 — IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION TASKS BY LINKED THIRD PARTIES....................26

ARTICLE 15 — FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THIRD PARTIES.................................................................. 26

15.1 Rules for providing financial support to third parties........................................................................26

15.2 Financial support in the form of prizes............................................................................................. 26


ARTICLE 16 — PROVISION OF TRANS-NATIONAL OR VIRTUAL ACCESS TO RESEARCHINFRASTRUCTURE.....................................................................................................................27

16.1 Rules for providing trans-national access to research infrastructure................................................. 27

16.2 Rules for providing virtual access to research infrastructure............................................................ 27


SECTION 2 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO THE GRANT ADMINISTRATION .............. 27

ARTICLE 17 — GENERAL OBLIGATION TO INFORM............................................................................27

17.1 General obligation to provide information upon request...................................................................27

17.2 Obligation to keep information up to date and to inform about events and circumstances likely toaffect the Agreement........................................................................................................................... 27


ARTICLE 18 — KEEPING RECORDS — SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION........................................ 28

18.1 Obligation to keep records and other supporting documentation...................................................... 28


ARTICLE 19 — SUBMISSION OF DELIVERABLES................................................................................. 29

19.1 Obligation to submit deliverables...................................................................................................... 29




6


ARTICLE 20 — REPORTING — PAYMENT REQUESTS..........................................................................29

20.1 Obligation to submit reports.............................................................................................................. 29

20.2 Reporting periods............................................................................................................................... 30

20.3 Periodic reports — Requests for interim payments...........................................................................30

20.4 Final report — Request for payment of the balance......................................................................... 31

20.5 Information on cumulative expenditure incurred...............................................................................32

20.6 Currency for financial statements and conversion into euro............................................................. 32

20.7 Language of reports............................................................................................................................32


ARTICLE 21 — PAYMENTS AND PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS..........................................................32

21.1 Payments to be made......................................................................................................................... 32

21.2 Pre-financing payment — Amount — Amount retained for the Guarantee Fund............................. 32

21.3 Interim payments — Amount — Calculation....................................................................................33

21.4 Payment of the balance — Amount — Calculation — Release of the amount retained for theGuarantee Fund....................................................................................................................................33

21.5 Notification of amounts due...............................................................................................................34

21.6 Currency for payments....................................................................................................................... 34

21.7 Payments to the coordinator — Distribution to the beneficiaries......................................................34

21.8 Bank account for payments................................................................................................................35

21.9 Costs of payment transfers.................................................................................................................35

21.10 Date of payment............................................................................................................................... 35

21.11 Consequences of non-compliance.................................................................................................... 35

ARTICLE 22 — CHECKS, REVIEWS, AUDITS AND INVESTIGATIONS — EXTENSION OFFINDINGS..................................................................................................................................... 36

22.1 Checks, reviews and audits by the Commission................................................................................36

22.2 Investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)..............................................................38

22.3 Checks and audits by the European Court of Auditors (ECA)..........................................................38

22.4 Checks, reviews, audits and investigations for international organisations....................................... 38

22.5 Consequences of findings in checks, reviews, audits and investigations — Extension offindings.................................................................................................................................................38


ARTICLE 23 — EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE ACTION....................................................... 40

23.1 Right to evaluate the impact of the action.........................................................................................40


SECTION 3 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO BACKGROUND AND RESULTS ................. 41




7

SUBSECTION 1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................41

ARTICLE 23a — MANAGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY......................................................41

23a.1 Obligation to take measures to implement the Commission Recommendation on the managementof intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities.....................................................................41

23a.2 Consequences of non-compliance.................................................................................................... 41

SUBSECTION 2 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO BACKGROUND ................................ 41

ARTICLE 24 — AGREEMENT ON BACKGROUND..................................................................................41

24.1 Agreement on background................................................................................................................. 41


ARTICLE 25 — ACCESS RIGHTS TO BACKGROUND............................................................................ 42

25.1 Exercise of access rights — Waiving of access rights — No sub-licensing......................................42

25.2 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for implementing their own tasks under the action.................42

25.3 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for exploiting their own results.............................................. 42

25.4 Access rights for affiliated entities.................................................................................................... 42

25.5 Access rights for third parties............................................................................................................ 43


SUBSECTION 3 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO RESULTS ........................................... 43

ARTICLE 26 — OWNERSHIP OF RESULTS...............................................................................................43

26.1 Ownership by the beneficiary that generates the results................................................................... 43

26.2 Joint ownership by several beneficiaries........................................................................................... 44

26.3 Rights of third parties (including personnel)..................................................................................... 44

26.4 EU ownership, to protect results........................................................................................................44


ARTICLE 27 — PROTECTION OF RESULTS — VISIBILITY OF EU FUNDING................................... 45

27.1 Obligation to protect the results.........................................................................................................45

27.2 EU ownership, to protect the results..................................................................................................46

27.3 Information on EU funding................................................................................................................46


ARTICLE 28 — EXPLOITATION OF RESULTS......................................................................................... 46

28.1 Obligation to exploit the results.........................................................................................................46

28.2 Results that could contribute to European or international standards — Information on EUfunding................................................................................................................................................. 46


ARTICLE 29 — DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS — OPEN ACCESS — VISIBILITY OF EUFUNDING...................................................................................................................................... 47

29.1 Obligation to disseminate results....................................................................................................... 47




8

29.2 Open access to scientific publications............................................................................................... 47

29.3 Open access to research data............................................................................................................. 48

29.4 Information on EU funding — Obligation and right to use the EU emblem.....................................48

29.5 Disclaimer excluding Commission responsibility..............................................................................49


ARTICLE 30 — TRANSFER AND LICENSING OF RESULTS..................................................................49

30.1 Transfer of ownership........................................................................................................................ 49

30.2 Granting licenses................................................................................................................................ 49

30.3 Commission right to object to transfers or licensing.........................................................................50


ARTICLE 31 — ACCESS RIGHTS TO RESULTS....................................................................................... 50

31.1 Exercise of access rights — Waiving of access rights — No sub-licensing......................................50

31.2 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for implementing their own tasks under the action.................50

31.3 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for exploiting their own results.............................................. 50

31.4 Access rights of affiliated entities......................................................................................................50

31.5 Access rights for the EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies and EU Member States................51

31.6 Access rights for third parties............................................................................................................ 51


SECTION 4 OTHER RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS .......................................................................................51

ARTICLE 32 — RECRUITMENT AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR RESEARCHERS..................... 51

32.1 Obligation to take measures to implement the European Charter for Researchers and Code ofConduct for the Recruitment of Researchers......................................................................................51


ARTICLE 33 — GENDER EQUALITY.........................................................................................................51

33.1 Obligation to aim for gender equality................................................................................................52


ARTICLE 34 — ETHICS AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY.......................................................................... 52

34.1 Obligation to comply with ethical and research integrity principles................................................. 52

34.2 Activities raising ethical issues.......................................................................................................... 53

34.3 Activities involving human embryos or human embryonic stem cells..............................................54


ARTICLE 35 — CONFLICT OF INTERESTS.............................................................................................. 54

35.1 Obligation to avoid a conflict of interests......................................................................................... 54


ARTICLE 36 — CONFIDENTIALITY...........................................................................................................54




9

36.1 General obligation to maintain confidentiality.................................................................................. 54


ARTICLE 37 — SECURITY-RELATED OBLIGATIONS............................................................................. 55

37.1 Results with a security recommendation........................................................................................... 56

37.2 Classified information........................................................................................................................ 56

37.3 Activities involving dual-use goods or dangerous materials and substances.....................................56


ARTICLE 38 — PROMOTING THE ACTION — VISIBILITY OF EU FUNDING....................................56

38.1 Communication activities by beneficiaries........................................................................................ 56

38.2 Communication activities by the Commission.................................................................................. 57


ARTICLE 39 — PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA.............................................................................. 58

39.1 Processing of personal data by the Commission............................................................................... 58

39.2 Processing of personal data by the beneficiaries............................................................................... 58


ARTICLE 40 — ASSIGNMENTS OF CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT AGAINST THE COMMISSION...........59

CHAPTER 5 DIVISION OF BENEFICIARIES’ ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES — RELATIONSHIPWITH COMPLEMENTARY BENEFICIARIES — RELATIONSHIP WITH PARTNERS OF AJOINT ACTION .......................................................................................................................................59

ARTICLE 41 — DIVISION OF BENEFICIARIES’ ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES —RELATIONSHIP WITH COMPLEMENTARY BENEFICIARIES — RELATIONSHIP WITHPARTNERS OF A JOINT ACTION.............................................................................................59

41.1 Roles and responsibility towards the Commission............................................................................ 59

41.2 Internal division of roles and responsibilities....................................................................................59

41.3 Internal arrangements between beneficiaries — Consortium agreement...........................................60

41.4 Relationship with complementary beneficiaries — Collaboration agreement...................................61

41.5 Relationship with partners of a joint action — Coordination agreement.......................................... 61

CHAPTER 6 REJECTION OF COSTS — REDUCTION OF THE GRANT — RECOVERY — SANCTIONS— DAMAGES — SUSPENSION — TERMINATION — FORCE MAJEURE ............................... 61

SECTION 1 REJECTION OF COSTS — REDUCTION OF THE GRANT — RECOVERY —SANCTIONS .............................................................................................................................................61

ARTICLE 42 — REJECTION OF INELIGIBLE COSTS.............................................................................. 61

42.1 Conditions........................................................................................................................................... 61

42.2 Ineligible costs to be rejected — Calculation — Procedure..............................................................61

42.3 Effects................................................................................................................................................. 61

ARTICLE 43 — REDUCTION OF THE GRANT......................................................................................... 62

43.1 Conditions........................................................................................................................................... 62




10

43.2 Amount to be reduced — Calculation — Procedure.........................................................................62

43.3 Effects................................................................................................................................................. 63

ARTICLE 44 — RECOVERY OF UNDUE AMOUNTS............................................................................... 63

44.1 Amount to be recovered — Calculation — Procedure......................................................................63

ARTICLE 45 — ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS..................................................................................... 67

SECTION 2 LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES ........................................................................................................ 67

ARTICLE 46 — LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES.............................................................................................67

46.1 Liability of the Commission.............................................................................................................. 67

46.2 Liability of the beneficiaries.............................................................................................................. 67

SECTION 3 SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION ............................................................................................67

ARTICLE 47 — SUSPENSION OF PAYMENT DEADLINE.......................................................................67

47.1 Conditions........................................................................................................................................... 67

47.2 Procedure............................................................................................................................................ 68

ARTICLE 48 — SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS..........................................................................................68

48.1 Conditions........................................................................................................................................... 68

48.2 Procedure............................................................................................................................................ 68

ARTICLE 49 — SUSPENSION OF THE ACTION IMPLEMENTATION...................................................69

49.1 Suspension of the action implementation, by the beneficiaries.........................................................69

49.2 Suspension of the action implementation, by the Commission......................................................... 69

ARTICLE 50 — TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT OR OF THE PARTICIPATION OF ONE ORMORE BENEFICIARIES..............................................................................................................71

50.1 Termination of the Agreement, by the beneficiaries..........................................................................71

50.2 Termination of the participation of one or more beneficiaries, by the beneficiaries..........................71

50.3 Termination of the Agreement or the participation of one or more beneficiaries, by theCommission......................................................................................................................................... 74

SECTION 4 FORCE MAJEURE ..........................................................................................................................78

ARTICLE 51 — FORCE MAJEURE..............................................................................................................78

CHAPTER 7 FINAL PROVISIONS .......................................................................................................................... 79

ARTICLE 52 — COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES...............................................................79

52.1 Form and means of communication...................................................................................................79

52.2 Date of communication...................................................................................................................... 79

52.3 Addresses for communication............................................................................................................ 80

ARTICLE 53 — INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENT.................................................................... 80

53.1 Precedence of the Terms and Conditions over the Annexes..............................................................80

53.2 Privileges and immunities.................................................................................................................. 80

ARTICLE 54 — CALCULATION OF PERIODS, DATES AND DEADLINES........................................... 80




11

ARTICLE 55 — AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT......................................................................... 80

55.1 Conditions........................................................................................................................................... 80

55.2 Procedure............................................................................................................................................ 81

ARTICLE 56 — ACCESSION TO THE AGREEMENT............................................................................... 81

56.1 Accession of the beneficiaries mentioned in the Preamble............................................................... 81

56.2 Addition of new beneficiaries............................................................................................................ 82

ARTICLE 57 — APPLICABLE LAW AND SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES.............................................. 82

57.1 Applicable law....................................................................................................................................82

57.2 Dispute settlement.............................................................................................................................. 82

ARTICLE 58 — ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AGREEMENT................................................................ 83




12

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL

ARTICLE 1 — SUBJECT OF THE AGREEMENT

This Agreement sets out the rights and obligations and the terms and conditions applicable to the grantawarded to the beneficiaries for implementing the action set out in Chapter 2.

CHAPTER 2 ACTION

ARTICLE 2 — ACTION TO BE IMPLEMENTED

The grant is awarded for the action entitled ‘CompactLight — XLS’ (‘action’), as described inAnnex 1.

ARTICLE 3 — DURATION AND STARTING DATE OF THE ACTION

The duration of the action will be 36 months as of 1 January 2018 (‘starting date of the action’).

ARTICLE 4 — ESTIMATED BUDGET AND BUDGET TRANSFERS

4.1 Estimated budget

The ‘estimated budget’ for the action is set out in Annex 2.

It contains the estimated eligible costs and the forms of costs, broken down by beneficiary and budgetcategory (see Articles 5, 6). It also shows the estimated costs of the beneficiaries not receiving EUfunding (see Article 9).

4.2 Budget transfers

The estimated budget breakdown indicated in Annex 2 may be adjusted — without an amendment(see Article 55) — by transfers of amounts between beneficiaries, budget categories and/or forms ofcosts set out in Annex 2, if the action is implemented as described in Annex 1.

However, the beneficiaries may not add costs relating to subcontracts not provided for in Annex 1,unless such additional subcontracts are approved by an amendment or in accordance with Article 13.

CHAPTER 3 GRANT

ARTICLE 5 — GRANT AMOUNT, FORM OF GRANT, REIMBURSEMENT RATES ANDFORMS OF COSTS

5.1 Maximum grant amount

The ‘maximum grant amount’ is EUR 2,999,500.00 (two million nine hundred and ninety ninethousand five hundred EURO).

5.2 Form of grant, reimbursement rates and forms of costs




13

The grant reimburses 100% of the action's eligible costs (see Article 6) (‘reimbursement of eligiblecosts grant’) (see Annex 2).

The estimated eligible costs of the action are EUR 3,009,500.00 (three million nine thousand fivehundred EURO).

Eligible costs (see Article 6) must be declared under the following forms ('forms of costs'):

(a) for direct personnel costs:

- as actually incurred costs (‘actual costs’) or

- on the basis of an amount per unit calculated by the beneficiary in accordance with its usualcost accounting practices (‘unit costs’).

Personnel costs for SME owners or beneficiaries that are natural persons not receiving asalary (see Article 6.2, Points A.4 and A.5) must be declared on the basis of the amount perunit set out in Annex 2a (unit costs);

(b) for direct costs for subcontracting: as actually incurred costs (actual costs);

(c) for direct costs of providing financial support to third parties: not applicable;

(d) for other direct costs: as actually incurred costs (actual costs);

(e) for indirect costs: on the basis of a flat-rate applied as set out in Article 6.2, Point E (‘flat-ratecosts’);

(f) specific cost category(ies): not applicable.

5.3 Final grant amount — Calculation

The ‘final grant amount’ depends on the actual extent to which the action is implemented inaccordance with the Agreement’s terms and conditions.

This amount is calculated by the Commission — when the payment of the balance is made (seeArticle 21.4) — in the following steps:

Step 1 – Application of the reimbursement rates to the eligible costs

Step 2 – Limit to the maximum grant amount

Step 3 – Reduction due to the no-profit rule

Step 4 – Reduction due to substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or serious breach of obligations

5.3.1 Step 1 — Application of the reimbursement rates to the eligible costs

The reimbursement rate(s) (see Article 5.2) are applied to the eligible costs (actual costs, unit costsand flat-rate costs; see Article 6) declared by the beneficiaries (see Article 20) and approved by theCommission (see Article 21).

5.3.2 Step 2 — Limit to the maximum grant amount




14

If the amount obtained following Step 1 is higher than the maximum grant amount set out inArticle 5.1, it will be limited to the latter.

5.3.3 Step 3 — Reduction due to the no-profit rule

The grant must not produce a profit.

‘Profit’ means the surplus of the amount obtained following Steps 1 and 2 plus the action’s totalreceipts, over the action’s total eligible costs.

The ‘action’s total eligible costs’ are the consolidated total eligible costs approved by theCommission.

The ‘action’s total receipts’ are the consolidated total receipts generated during its duration (seeArticle 3).

The following are considered receipts:

(a) income generated by the action; if the income is generated from selling equipment or otherassets purchased under the Agreement, the receipt is up to the amount declared as eligible underthe Agreement;

(b) financial contributions given by third parties to the beneficiary specifically to be used for theaction, and

(c) in-kind contributions provided by third parties free of charge and specifically to be used for theaction, if they have been declared as eligible costs.

The following are however not considered receipts:

(a) income generated by exploiting the action’s results (see Article 28);

(b) financial contributions by third parties, if they may be used to cover costs other than the eligiblecosts (see Article 6);

(c) financial contributions by third parties with no obligation to repay any amount unused at theend of the period set out in Article 3.

If there is a profit, it will be deducted from the amount obtained following Steps 1 and 2.

5.3.4 Step 4 — Reduction due to substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or serious breach ofobligations — Reduced grant amount — Calculation

If the grant is reduced (see Article 43), the Commission will calculate the reduced grant amountby deducting the amount of the reduction (calculated in proportion to the seriousness of the errors,irregularities or fraud or breach of obligations, in accordance with Article 43.2) from the maximumgrant amount set out in Article 5.1.

The final grant amount will be the lower of the following two:

- the amount obtained following Steps 1 to 3 or

- the reduced grant amount following Step 4.




15

5.4 Revised final grant amount — Calculation

If — after the payment of the balance (in particular, after checks, reviews, audits or investigations;see Article 22) — the Commission rejects costs (see Article 42) or reduces the grant (see Article 43),it will calculate the ‘revised final grant amount’ for the beneficiary concerned by the findings.

This amount is calculated by the Commission on the basis of the findings, as follows:

- in case of rejection of costs: by applying the reimbursement rate to the revised eligible costsapproved by the Commission for the beneficiary concerned;

- in case of reduction of the grant: by calculating the concerned beneficiary’s share in the grantamount reduced in proportion to the seriousness of the errors, irregularities or fraud or breachof obligations (see Article 43.2).

In case of rejection of costs and reduction of the grant, the revised final grant amount for thebeneficiary concerned will be the lower of the two amounts above.

ARTICLE 6 — ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE COSTS

6.1 General conditions for costs to be eligible

‘Eligible costs’ are costs that meet the following criteria:

(a) for actual costs:

(i) they must be actually incurred by the beneficiary;

(ii) they must be incurred in the period set out in Article 3, with the exception of costs relatingto the submission of the periodic report for the last reporting period and the final report(see Article 20);

(iii) they must be indicated in the estimated budget set out in Annex 2;

(iv) they must be incurred in connection with the action as described in Annex 1 and necessaryfor its implementation;

(v) they must be identifiable and verifiable, in particular recorded in the beneficiary’s accountsin accordance with the accounting standards applicable in the country where the beneficiaryis established and with the beneficiary’s usual cost accounting practices;

(vi) they must comply with the applicable national law on taxes, labour and social security, and

(vii) they must be reasonable, justified and must comply with the principle of sound financialmanagement, in particular regarding economy and efficiency;

(b) for unit costs:

(i) they must be calculated as follows:

{amounts per unit set out in Annex 2a or calculated by the beneficiary in accordance with its usual costaccounting practices (see Article 6.2, Point A)

multiplied by




16

the number of actual units};

(ii) the number of actual units must comply with the following conditions:

- the units must be actually used or produced in the period set out in Article 3;

- the units must be necessary for implementing the action or produced by it, and

- the number of units must be identifiable and verifiable, in particular supported by recordsand documentation (see Article 18);

(c) for flat-rate costs:

(i) they must be calculated by applying the flat-rate set out in Annex 2, and

(ii) the costs (actual costs or unit costs) to which the flat-rate is applied must comply with theconditions for eligibility set out in this Article.

6.2 Specific conditions for costs to be eligible

Costs are eligible if they comply with the general conditions (see above) and the specific conditionsset out below for each of the following budget categories:

A. direct personnel costs;B. direct costs of subcontracting;C. not applicable;D. other direct costs;E. indirect costs;F. not applicable.

‘Direct costs’ are costs that are directly linked to the action implementation and can therefore beattributed to it directly. They must not include any indirect costs (see Point E below).

‘Indirect costs’ are costs that are not directly linked to the action implementation and therefore cannotbe attributed directly to it.

A. Direct personnel costs

Types of eligible personnel costs

A.1 Personnel costs are eligible, if they are related to personnel working for the beneficiary underan employment contract (or equivalent appointing act) and assigned to the action (‘costs foremployees (or equivalent)’). They must be limited to salaries (including during parental leave),social security contributions, taxes and other costs included in the remuneration, if they arisefrom national law or the employment contract (or equivalent appointing act).

Beneficiaries that are non-profit legal entities1 may also declare as personnel costs additionalremuneration for personnel assigned to the action (including payments on the basis ofsupplementary contracts regardless of their nature), if:

(a) it is part of the beneficiary’s usual remuneration practices and is paid in a consistentmanner whenever the same kind of work or expertise is required;




17

(b) the criteria used to calculate the supplementary payments are objective and generallyapplied by the beneficiary, regardless of the source of funding used.

Additional remuneration for personnel assigned to the action is eligible up to the followingamount:

(a) if the person works full time and exclusively on the action during the full year: up toEUR 8 000;

(b) if the person works exclusively on the action but not full-time or not for the full year: upto the corresponding pro-rata amount of EUR 8 000, or

(c) if the person does not work exclusively on the action: up to a pro-rata amount calculatedas follows:

{{EUR 8 000

divided by

the number of annual productive hours (see below)},

multiplied by

the number of hours that the person has worked on the action during the year}.

A.2 The costs for natural persons working under a direct contract with the beneficiary other thanan employment contract are eligible personnel costs, if:

(a) the person works under the beneficiary’s instructions and, unless otherwise agreed withthe beneficiary, on the beneficiary’s premises;

(b) the result of the work carried out belongs to the beneficiary, and

(c) the costs are not significantly different from those for personnel performing similar tasksunder an employment contract with the beneficiary.

A.3 The costs of personnel seconded by a third party against payment are eligible personnelcosts, if the conditions in Article 11.1 are met.

A.4 Costs of owners of beneficiaries that are small and medium-sized enterprises (‘SME owners’)who are working on the action and who do not receive a salary are eligible personnel costs, ifthey correspond to the amount per unit set out in Annex 2a multiplied by the number of actualhours worked on the action.

A.5 Costs of ‘beneficiaries that are natural persons’ not receiving a salary are eligible personnelcosts, if they correspond to the amount per unit set out in Annex 2a multiplied by the numberof actual hours worked on the action.

Calculation

1 For the definition, see Article 2.1(14) of the Rules for Participation Regulation No 1290/2013: ‘non-profit legal entity’means a legal entity which by its legal form is non-profit-making or which has a legal or statutory obligation not todistribute profits to its shareholders or individual members.




18

Personnel costs must be calculated by the beneficiaries as follows:

{{hourly rate

multiplied by

the number of actual hours worked on the action},

plus

for non-profit legal entities: additional remuneration to personnel assigned to the action under the conditionsset out above (Point A.1)}.

The number of actual hours declared for a person must be identifiable and verifiable (see Article 18).

The total number of hours declared in EU or Euratom grants, for a person for a year, cannot be higherthan the annual productive hours used for the calculations of the hourly rate. Therefore, the maximumnumber of hours that can be declared for the grant is:

{the number of annual productive hours for the year (see below)

minus

total number of hours declared by the beneficiary for that person in that year for other EU or Euratom grants}.

The ‘hourly rate’ is one of the following:

(a) for personnel costs declared as actual costs: the hourly rate is calculated per full financial year,as follows:

{actual annual personnel costs (excluding additional remuneration) for the person

divided by

number of annual productive hours}.

using the personnel costs and the number of productive hours for each full financial yearcovered by the reporting period concerned. If a financial year is not closed at the end of thereporting period, the beneficiaries must use the hourly rate of the last closed financial yearavailable.

For the ‘number of annual productive hours’, the beneficiaries may choose one of the following:

(i) ‘fixed number of hours’: 1 720 hours for persons working full time (or correspondingpro-rata for persons not working full time);

(ii) ‘individual annual productive hours’: the total number of hours worked by the person inthe year for the beneficiary, calculated as follows:

{annual workable hours of the person (according to the employment contract, applicablecollective labour agreement or national law)

plus

overtime worked

minus

absences (such as sick leave and special leave)}.




19

‘Annual workable hours’ means the period during which the personnel must beworking, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his/her activity or duties under theemployment contract, applicable collective labour agreement or national working timelegislation.

If the contract (or applicable collective labour agreement or national working timelegislation) does not allow to determine the annual workable hours, this option cannotbe used;

(iii) ‘standard annual productive hours’: the ‘standard number of annual hours’ generallyapplied by the beneficiary for its personnel in accordance with its usual cost accountingpractices. This number must be at least 90% of the ‘standard annual workable hours’.

If there is no applicable reference for the standard annual workable hours, this optioncannot be used.

For all options, the actual time spent on parental leave by a person assigned to the actionmay be deducted from the number of annual productive hours.

As an alternative, beneficiaries may calculate the hourly rate per month, as follows:

{actual monthly personnel cost (excluding additional remuneration) for the person

divided by

{number of annual productive hours / 12}}

using the personnel costs for each month and (one twelfth of) the annual productive hourscalculated according to either option (i) or (iii) above, i.e.:

- fixed number of hours or

- standard annual productive hours.

Time spent on parental leave may not be deducted when calculating the hourly rate permonth. However, beneficiaries may declare personnel costs incurred in periods of parentalleave in proportion to the time the person worked on the action in that financial year.

If parts of a basic remuneration are generated over a period longer than a month, thebeneficiaries may include only the share which is generated in the month (irrespective ofthe amount actually paid for that month).

Each beneficiary must use only one option (per full financial year or per month) for each fullfinancial year;

(b) for personnel costs declared on the basis of unit costs: the hourly rate is one of the following:

(i) for SME owners or beneficiaries that are natural persons: the hourly rate set out inAnnex 2a (see Points A.4 and A.5 above), or

(ii) for personnel costs declared on the basis of the beneficiary’s usual cost accountingpractices: the hourly rate calculated by the beneficiary in accordance with its usual costaccounting practices, if:




20

- the cost accounting practices used are applied in a consistent manner, based onobjective criteria, regardless of the source of funding;

- the hourly rate is calculated using the actual personnel costs recorded in thebeneficiary’s accounts, excluding any ineligible cost or costs included in other budgetcategories.

The actual personnel costs may be adjusted by the beneficiary on the basis ofbudgeted or estimated elements. Those elements must be relevant for calculating thepersonnel costs, reasonable and correspond to objective and verifiable information;

and

- the hourly rate is calculated using the number of annual productive hours (see above).

B. Direct costs of subcontracting (including related duties, taxes and charges such as non-deductible value added tax (VAT) paid by the beneficiary) are eligible if the conditions inArticle 13.1.1 are met.

C. Direct costs of providing financial support to third parties

Not applicable

D. Other direct costs

D.1 Travel costs and related subsistence allowances (including related duties, taxes and chargessuch as non-deductible value added tax (VAT) paid by the beneficiary) are eligible if they are inline with the beneficiary’s usual practices on travel.

D.2 The depreciation costs of equipment, infrastructure or other assets (new or second-hand) asrecorded in the beneficiary’s accounts are eligible, if they were purchased in accordance withArticle 10.1.1 and written off in accordance with international accounting standards and thebeneficiary’s usual accounting practices.

The costs of renting or leasing equipment, infrastructure or other assets (including related duties,taxes and charges such as non-deductible value added tax (VAT) paid by the beneficiary) are alsoeligible, if they do not exceed the depreciation costs of similar equipment, infrastructure or assetsand do not include any financing fees.

The costs of equipment, infrastructure or other assets contributed in-kind against payment areeligible, if they do not exceed the depreciation costs of similar equipment, infrastructure or assets,do not include any financing fees and if the conditions in Article 11.1 are met.

The only portion of the costs that will be taken into account is that which corresponds to theduration of the action and rate of actual use for the purposes of the action.

D.3 Costs of other goods and services (including related duties, taxes and charges such as non-deductible value added tax (VAT) paid by the beneficiary) are eligible, if they are:

(a) purchased specifically for the action and in accordance with Article 10.1.1 or




21

(b) contributed in kind against payment and in accordance with Article 11.1.

Such goods and services include, for instance, consumables and supplies, dissemination(including open access), protection of results, certificates on the financial statements (if they arerequired by the Agreement), certificates on the methodology, translations and publications.

D.4 Capitalised and operating costs of ‘large research infrastructure’2: Not applicable

E. Indirect costs

Indirect costs are eligible if they are declared on the basis of the flat-rate of 25% of the eligible directcosts (see Article 5.2 and Points A to D above), from which are excluded:

(a) costs of subcontracting and

(b) costs of in-kind contributions provided by third parties which are not used on the beneficiary’spremises;

(c) not applicable;

(d) not applicable.

Beneficiaries receiving an operating grant4 financed by the EU or Euratom budget cannot declareindirect costs for the period covered by the operating grant.

F. Specific cost category(ies)

Not applicable

6.3 Conditions for costs of linked third parties to be eligible

Not applicable

6.4 Conditions for in-kind contributions provided by third parties free of charge to be eligible

In-kind contributions provided free of charge are eligible direct costs (for the beneficiary), if thecosts incurred by the third party fulfil — mutatis mutandis — the general and specific conditions foreligibility set out in this Article (Article 6.1 and 6.2) and Article 12.1.

6.5 Ineligible costs

2 ‘Large research infrastructure’ means research infrastructure of a total value of at least EUR 20 million, for abeneficiary, calculated as the sum of historical asset values of each individual research infrastructure of that beneficiary,as they appear in its last closed balance sheet before the date of the signature of the Agreement or as determined on thebasis of the rental and leasing costs of the research infrastructure.

4 For the definition, see Article 121(1)(b) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament andof the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealingCouncil Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (‘Financial Regulation No 966/2012’)(OJ L 218, 26.10.2012, p.1):‘operating grant’ means direct financial contribution, by way of donation, from the budget in order to finance thefunctioning of a body which pursues an aim of general EU interest or has an objective forming part of and supportingan EU policy.




22

‘Ineligible costs’ are:

(a) costs that do not comply with the conditions set out above (Article 6.1 to 6.4), in particular:

(i) costs related to return on capital;

(ii) debt and debt service charges;

(iii) provisions for future losses or debts;

(iv) interest owed;

(v) doubtful debts;

(vi) currency exchange losses;

(vii) bank costs charged by the beneficiary’s bank for transfers from the Commission;

(viii) excessive or reckless expenditure;

(ix) deductible VAT;

(x) costs incurred during suspension of the implementation of the action (see Article 49);

(b) costs declared under another EU or Euratom grant (including grants awarded by a MemberState and financed by the EU or Euratom budget and grants awarded by bodies other than theCommission for the purpose of implementing the EU or Euratom budget); in particular, indirectcosts if the beneficiary is already receiving an operating grant financed by the EU or Euratombudget in the same period.

6.6 Consequences of declaration of ineligible costs

Declared costs that are ineligible will be rejected (see Article 42).

This may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6.

CHAPTER 4 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES

SECTION 1 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO IMPLEMENTING THEACTION

ARTICLE 7 — GENERAL OBLIGATION TO PROPERLY IMPLEMENT THE ACTION

7.1 General obligation to properly implement the action

The beneficiaries must implement the action as described in Annex 1 and in compliance with theprovisions of the Agreement and all legal obligations under applicable EU, international and nationallaw.

7.2 Consequences of non-compliance




23

If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (seeArticle 43).

Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6.

ARTICLE 8 — RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT THE ACTION — THIRD PARTIESINVOLVED IN THE ACTION

The beneficiaries must have the appropriate resources to implement the action.

If it is necessary to implement the action, the beneficiaries may:

- purchase goods, works and services (see Article 10);

- use in-kind contributions provided by third parties against payment (see Article 11);

- use in-kind contributions provided by third parties free of charge (see Article 12);

- call upon subcontractors to implement action tasks described in Annex 1 (see Article 13);

- call upon linked third parties to implement action tasks described in Annex 1 (see Article 14).

In these cases, the beneficiaries retain sole responsibility towards the Commission and the otherbeneficiaries for implementing the action.

ARTICLE 9 — IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION TASKS BY BENEFICIARIES NOTRECEIVING EU FUNDING

9.1 Rules for the implementation of action tasks by beneficiaries not receiving EU funding

Beneficiaries not receiving EU funding must implement the action tasks attributed to them in Annex 1according to Article 7.1.

Their costs are estimated in Annex 2 but:

- will not be reimbursed and

- will not be taken into account for the calculation of the grant (see Articles 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4,and 21).

Chapter 3, Articles 10 to 15, 18.1.2, 20.3(b), 20.4(b), 20.6, 21, 23a, 26.4, 27.2, 28.1, 28.2, 30.3, 31.5,40, 42, 43, 44, 47 and 48 do not apply to these beneficiaries.

They will not be subject to financial checks, reviews and audits under Article 22.

Beneficiaries not receiving EU funding may provide in-kind contributions to another beneficiary. Inthis case, they will be considered as a third party for the purpose of Articles 11 and 12.


If a beneficiary not receiving EU funding breaches any of its obligations under this Article, itsparticipation in the Agreement may be terminated (see Article 50).




24

Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6 that are applicableto it.

ARTICLE 10 — PURCHASE OF GOODS, WORKS OR SERVICES

10.1 Rules for purchasing goods, works or services

10.1.1 If necessary to implement the action, the beneficiaries may purchase goods, works or services.

The beneficiaries must make such purchases ensuring the best value for money or, if appropriate, thelowest price. In doing so, they must avoid any conflict of interests (see Article 35).

The beneficiaries must ensure that the Commission, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and theEuropean Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) can exercise their rights under Articles 22 and 23 also towardstheir contractors.

10.1.2 Beneficiaries that are ‘contracting authorities’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/18/EC5 (or2014/24/EU6) or ‘contracting entities’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/17/EC7 (or 2014/25/EU8)must comply with the applicable national law on public procurement.


If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under Article 10.1.1, the costs related to the contractconcerned will be ineligible (see Article 6) and will be rejected (see Article 42).

If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under Article 10.1.2, the grant may be reduced (seeArticle 43).


ARTICLE 11 — USE OF IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIESAGAINST PAYMENT

11.1 Rules for the use of in-kind contributions against payment

If necessary to implement the action, the beneficiaries may use in-kind contributions provided by thirdparties against payment.

The beneficiaries may declare costs related to the payment of in-kind contributions as eligible (seeArticle 6.1 and 6.2), up to the third parties’ costs for the seconded persons, contributed equipment,infrastructure or other assets or other contributed goods and services.

5 Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination ofprocedures for the award of public work contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134,30.04.2004, p. 114).

6 Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement andrepealing Directive 2004/18/EC. (OJ L 94, 28.03.2014, p. 65).

7 Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurementprocedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ L 134, 30.04.2004, p. 1)

8 Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entitiesoperating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94,28.03.2014, p. 243).




25

The third parties and their contributions must be set out in Annex 1. The Commission may howeverapprove in-kind contributions not set out in Annex 1 without amendment (see Article 55), if:

- they are specifically justified in the periodic technical report and

- their use does not entail changes to the Agreement which would call into question the decisionawarding the grant or breach the principle of equal treatment of applicants.

The beneficiaries must ensure that the Commission, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and theEuropean Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) can exercise their rights under Articles 22 and 23 also towardsthe third parties.


If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the costs related to the payment ofthe in-kind contribution will be ineligible (see Article 6) and will be rejected (see Article 42).


ARTICLE 12 — USE OF IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS PROVIDED BY THIRD PARTIESFREE OF CHARGE

12.1 Rules for the use of in-kind contributions free of charge

If necessary to implement the action, the beneficiaries may use in-kind contributions provided by thirdparties free of charge.

The beneficiaries may declare costs incurred by the third parties for the seconded persons, contributedequipment, infrastructure or other assets or other contributed goods and services as eligible inaccordance with Article 6.4.

The third parties and their contributions must be set out in Annex 1. The Commission may howeverapprove in-kind contributions not set out in Annex 1 without amendment (see Article 55), if:


- their use does not entail changes to the Agreement which would call into question the decisionawarding the grant or breach the principle of equal treatment of applicants.

The beneficiaries must ensure that the Commission, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and theEuropean Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) can exercise their rights under Articles 22 and 23 also towardsthe third parties.


If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the costs incurred by the third partiesrelated to the in-kind contribution will be ineligible (see Article 6) and will be rejected (see Article 42).


ARTICLE 13 — IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION TASKS BY SUBCONTRACTORS




26

13.1 Rules for subcontracting action tasks

13.1.1 If necessary to implement the action, the beneficiaries may award subcontracts covering theimplementation of certain action tasks described in Annex 1.

Subcontracting may cover only a limited part of the action.

The beneficiaries must award the subcontracts ensuring the best value for money or, if appropriate,the lowest price. In doing so, they must avoid any conflict of interests (see Article 35).

The tasks to be implemented and the estimated cost for each subcontract must be set out in Annex 1 andthe total estimated costs of subcontracting per beneficiary must be set out in Annex 2. The Commissionmay however approve subcontracts not set out in Annex 1 and 2 without amendment (see Article 55),if:


- they do not entail changes to the Agreement which would call into question the decisionawarding the grant or breach the principle of equal treatment of applicants.

The beneficiaries must ensure that the Commission, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) and theEuropean Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) can exercise their rights under Articles 22 and 23 also towardstheir subcontractors.

13.1.2 The beneficiaries must ensure that their obligations under Articles 35, 36, 38 and 46 also applyto the subcontractors.

Beneficiaries that are ‘contracting authorities’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/18/EC (or2014/24/EU) or ‘contracting entities’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/17/EC (or 2014/25/EU)must comply with the applicable national law on public procurement.


If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under Article 13.1.1, the costs related to the subcontractconcerned will be ineligible (see Article 6) and will be rejected (see Article 42).

If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under Article 13.1.2, the grant may be reduced (seeArticle 43).


ARTICLE 14 — IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION TASKS BY LINKED THIRD PARTIES

Not applicable

ARTICLE 15 — FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THIRD PARTIES

15.1 Rules for providing financial support to third parties

Not applicable

15.2 Financial support in the form of prizes




27

Not applicable


Not applicable

ARTICLE 16 — PROVISION OF TRANS-NATIONAL OR VIRTUAL ACCESS TORESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE

16.1 Rules for providing trans-national access to research infrastructure

Not applicable

16.2 Rules for providing virtual access to research infrastructure

Not applicable


Not applicable

SECTION 2 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO THE GRANTADMINISTRATION

ARTICLE 17 — GENERAL OBLIGATION TO INFORM

17.1 General obligation to provide information upon request

The beneficiaries must provide — during implementation of the action or afterwards and in accordancewith Article 41.2 — any information requested in order to verify eligibility of the costs, properimplementation of the action and compliance with any other obligation under the Agreement.

17.2 Obligation to keep information up to date and to inform about events and circumstanceslikely to affect the Agreement

Each beneficiary must keep information stored in the Participant Portal Beneficiary Register (viathe electronic exchange system; see Article 52) up to date, in particular, its name, address, legalrepresentatives, legal form and organisation type.

Each beneficiary must immediately inform the coordinator — which must immediately inform theCommission and the other beneficiaries — of any of the following:

(a) events which are likely to affect significantly or delay the implementation of the action or theEU's financial interests, in particular:

(i) changes in its legal, financial, technical, organisational or ownership situation

(b) circumstances affecting:

(i) the decision to award the grant or




28

(ii) compliance with requirements under the Agreement.




ARTICLE 18 — KEEPING RECORDS — SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

18.1 Obligation to keep records and other supporting documentation

The beneficiaries must — for a period of five years after the payment of the balance — keep recordsand other supporting documentation in order to prove the proper implementation of the action andthe costs they declare as eligible.

They must make them available upon request (see Article 17) or in the context of checks, reviews,audits or investigations (see Article 22).

If there are on-going checks, reviews, audits, investigations, litigation or other pursuits of claims underthe Agreement (including the extension of findings; see Article 22), the beneficiaries must keep therecords and other supporting documentation until the end of these procedures.

The beneficiaries must keep the original documents. Digital and digitalised documents are consideredoriginals if they are authorised by the applicable national law. The Commission may accept non-original documents if it considers that they offer a comparable level of assurance.

18.1.1 Records and other supporting documentation on the scientific and technicalimplementation

The beneficiaries must keep records and other supporting documentation on scientific and technicalimplementation of the action in line with the accepted standards in the respective field.

18.1.2 Records and other documentation to support the costs declared

The beneficiaries must keep the records and documentation supporting the costs declared, in particularthe following:

(a) for actual costs: adequate records and other supporting documentation to prove the costsdeclared, such as contracts, subcontracts, invoices and accounting records. In addition, thebeneficiaries' usual cost accounting practices and internal control procedures must enable directreconciliation between the amounts declared, the amounts recorded in their accounts and theamounts stated in the supporting documentation;

(b) for unit costs: adequate records and other supporting documentation to prove the number ofunits declared. Beneficiaries do not need to identify the actual eligible costs covered or to keepor provide supporting documentation (such as accounting statements) to prove the amount perunit.

In addition, for direct personnel costs declared as unit costs calculated in accordance




29

with the beneficiary's usual cost accounting practices, the beneficiaries must keep adequaterecords and documentation to prove that the cost accounting practices used comply with theconditions set out in Article 6.2, Point A.

The beneficiaries may submit to the Commission, for approval, a certificate (drawn up inaccordance with Annex 6) stating that their usual cost accounting practices comply with theseconditions (‘certificate on the methodology’). If the certificate is approved, costs declared inline with this methodology will not be challenged subsequently, unless the beneficiaries haveconcealed information for the purpose of the approval.

(c) for flat-rate costs: adequate records and other supporting documentation to prove the eligibilityof the costs to which the flat-rate is applied. The beneficiaries do not need to identify the costscovered or provide supporting documentation (such as accounting statements) to prove theamount declared at a flat-rate.

In addition, for personnel costs (declared as actual costs or on the basis of unit costs), the beneficiariesmust keep time records for the number of hours declared. The time records must be in writing andapproved by the persons working on the action and their supervisors, at least monthly. In the absenceof reliable time records of the hours worked on the action, the Commission may accept alternativeevidence supporting the number of hours declared, if it considers that it offers an adequate level ofassurance.

As an exception, for persons working exclusively on the action, there is no need to keep time records,if the beneficiary signs a declaration confirming that the persons concerned have worked exclusivelyon the action.


If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, costs insufficiently substantiatedwill be ineligible (see Article 6) and will be rejected (see Article 42), and the grant may be reduced(see Article 43).


ARTICLE 19 — SUBMISSION OF DELIVERABLES

19.1 Obligation to submit deliverables

The coordinator must submit the ‘deliverables’ identified in Annex 1, in accordance with the timingand conditions set out in it.


If the coordinator breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the Commission may apply anyof the measures described in Chapter 6.

ARTICLE 20 — REPORTING — PAYMENT REQUESTS

20.1 Obligation to submit reports

The coordinator must submit to the Commission (see Article 52) the technical and financial reports




30

set out in this Article. These reports include requests for payment and must be drawn up using theforms and templates provided in the electronic exchange system (see Article 52).

20.2 Reporting periods

The action is divided into the following ‘reporting periods’:

- RP1: from month 1 to month 18- RP2: from month 19 to month 36

20.3 Periodic reports — Requests for interim payments

The coordinator must submit a periodic report within 60 days following the end of each reportingperiod.

The periodic report must include the following:

(a) a ‘periodic technical report’ containing:

(i) an explanation of the work carried out by the beneficiaries;

(ii) an overview of the progress towards the objectives of the action, including milestones anddeliverables identified in Annex 1.

This report must include explanations justifying the differences between work expected tobe carried out in accordance with Annex 1 and that actually carried out.

The report must detail the exploitation and dissemination of the results and — if requiredin Annex 1 — an updated ‘plan for the exploitation and dissemination of the results’.

The report must indicate the communication activities;

(iii) a summary for publication by the Commission;

(iv) the answers to the ‘questionnaire’, covering issues related to the action implementationand the economic and societal impact, notably in the context of the Horizon 2020 keyperformance indicators and the Horizon 2020 monitoring requirements;

(b) a ‘periodic financial report’ containing:

(i) an ‘individual financial statement’ (see Annex 4) from each beneficiary, for the reportingperiod concerned.

The individual financial statement must detail the eligible costs (actual costs, unit costs andflat-rate costs; see Article 6) for each budget category (see Annex 2).

The beneficiaries must declare all eligible costs, even if — for actual costs, unit costs andflat-rate costs — they exceed the amounts indicated in the estimated budget (see Annex 2).Amounts which are not declared in the individual financial statement will not be taken intoaccount by the Commission.

If an individual financial statement is not submitted for a reporting period, it may beincluded in the periodic financial report for the next reporting period.




31

The individual financial statements of the last reporting period must also detail the receiptsof the action (see Article 5.3.3).

Each beneficiary must certify that:

- the information provided is full, reliable and true;

- the costs declared are eligible (see Article 6);

- the costs can be substantiated by adequate records and supporting documentation(see Article 18) that will be produced upon request (see Article 17) or in the contextof checks, reviews, audits and investigations (see Article 22), and

- for the last reporting period: that all the receipts have been declared (seeArticle 5.3.3);

(ii) an explanation of the use of resources and the information on subcontracting (seeArticle 13) and in-kind contributions provided by third parties (see Articles 11 and 12) fromeach beneficiary, for the reporting period concerned;

(iii) not applicable;

(iv) a ‘periodic summary financial statement’, created automatically by the electronicexchange system, consolidating the individual financial statements for the reporting periodconcerned and including — except for the last reporting period — the request for interimpayment.

20.4 Final report — Request for payment of the balance

In addition to the periodic report for the last reporting period, the coordinator must submit the finalreport within 60 days following the end of the last reporting period.

The final report must include the following:

(a) a ‘final technical report’ with a summary for publication containing:

(i) an overview of the results and their exploitation and dissemination;

(ii) the conclusions on the action, and

(iii) the socio-economic impact of the action;

(b) a ‘final financial report’ containing:

(i) a ‘final summary financial statement’, created automatically by the electronic exchangesystem, consolidating the individual financial statements for all reporting periods andincluding the request for payment of the balance and

(ii) a ‘certificate on the financial statements’ (drawn up in accordance with Annex 5) for eachbeneficiary , if it requests a total contribution of EUR 325 000 or more, as reimbursementof actual costs and unit costs calculated on the basis of its usual cost accounting practices(see Article 5.2 and Article 6.2, Point A).




32

20.5 Information on cumulative expenditure incurred

Not applicable

20.6 Currency for financial statements and conversion into euro

Financial statements must be drafted in euro.

Beneficiaries with accounting established in a currency other than the euro must convert the costsrecorded in their accounts into euro, at the average of the daily exchange rates published in the C seriesof the Official Journal of the European Union, calculated over the corresponding reporting period.

If no daily euro exchange rate is published in the Official Journal of the European Union for thecurrency in question, they must be converted at the average of the monthly accounting rates publishedon the Commission’s website, calculated over the corresponding reporting period.

Beneficiaries with accounting established in euro must convert costs incurred in another currency intoeuro according to their usual accounting practices.

20.7 Language of reports

All reports (technical and financial reports, including financial statements) must be submitted in thelanguage of the Agreement.


If the reports submitted do not comply with this Article, the Commission may suspend the paymentdeadline (see Article 47) and apply any of the other measures described in Chapter 6.

If the coordinator breaches its obligation to submit the reports and if it fails to comply with thisobligation within 30 days following a written reminder, the Commission may terminate the Agreement(see Article 50) or apply any of the other measures described in Chapter 6.

ARTICLE 21 — PAYMENTS AND PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS

21.1 Payments to be made

The following payments will be made to the coordinator:

- one pre-financing payment;

- one or more interim payments, on the basis of the request(s) for interim payment (seeArticle 20), and

- one payment of the balance, on the basis of the request for payment of the balance (seeArticle 20).

21.2 Pre-financing payment — Amount — Amount retained for the Guarantee Fund

The aim of the pre-financing is to provide the beneficiaries with a float.

It remains the property of the EU until the payment of the balance.




33

The amount of the pre-financing payment will be EUR 2,399,600.00 (two million three hundred andninety nine thousand six hundred EURO).

The Commission will — except if Article 48 applies — make the pre-financing payment to thecoordinator within 30 days, either from the entry into force of the Agreement (see Article 58) or from10 days before the starting date of the action (see Article 3), whichever is the latest.

An amount of EUR 149,975.00 (one hundred and forty nine thousand nine hundred and seventy fiveEURO), corresponding to 5% of the maximum grant amount (see Article 5.1), is retained by theCommission from the pre-financing payment and transferred into the ‘Guarantee Fund’.

21.3 Interim payments — Amount — Calculation

Interim payments reimburse the eligible costs incurred for the implementation of the action duringthe corresponding reporting periods.

The Commission will pay to the coordinator the amount due as interim payment within 90 days fromreceiving the periodic report (see Article 20.3), except if Articles 47 or 48 apply.

Payment is subject to the approval of the periodic report. Its approval does not imply recognition ofthe compliance, authenticity, completeness or correctness of its content.

The amount due as interim payment is calculated by the Commission in the following steps:

Step 1 – Application of the reimbursement rates

Step 2 – Limit to 90% of the maximum grant amount

21.3.1 Step 1 — Application of the reimbursement rates

The reimbursement rate(s) (see Article 5.2) are applied to the eligible costs (actual costs, unit costsand flat-rate costs ; see Article 6) declared by the beneficiaries (see Article 20) and approved by theCommission (see above) for the concerned reporting period.

21.3.2 Step 2 — Limit to 90% of the maximum grant amount

The total amount of pre-financing and interim payments must not exceed 90% of the maximum grantamount set out in Article 5.1. The maximum amount for the interim payment will be calculated asfollows:

{90% of the maximum grant amount (see Article 5.1)

minus

{pre-financing and previous interim payments}}.

21.4 Payment of the balance — Amount — Calculation — Release of the amount retained forthe Guarantee Fund

The payment of the balance reimburses the remaining part of the eligible costs incurred by thebeneficiaries for the implementation of the action.

If the total amount of earlier payments is greater than the final grant amount (see Article 5.3), thepayment of the balance takes the form of a recovery (see Article 44).




34

If the total amount of earlier payments is lower than the final grant amount, the Commission willpay the balance within 90 days from receiving the final report (see Article 20.4), except if Articles47 or 48 apply.

Payment is subject to the approval of the final report. Its approval does not imply recognition of thecompliance, authenticity, completeness or correctness of its content.

The amount due as the balance is calculated by the Commission by deducting the total amount ofpre-financing and interim payments (if any) already made, from the final grant amount determinedin accordance with Article 5.3:

{final grant amount (see Article 5.3)

minus

{pre-financing and interim payments (if any) made}}.

At the payment of the balance, the amount retained for the Guarantee Fund (see above) will be releasedand:

- if the balance is positive: the amount released will be paid in full to the coordinator togetherwith the amount due as the balance;

- if the balance is negative (payment of the balance taking the form of recovery): it will bededucted from the amount released (see Article 44.1.2). If the resulting amount:

- is positive, it will be paid to the coordinator

- is negative, it will be recovered.

The amount to be paid may however be offset — without the beneficiaries' consent — against anyother amount owed by a beneficiary to the Commission or an executive agency (under the EU orEuratom budget), up to the maximum EU contribution indicated, for that beneficiary, in the estimatedbudget (see Annex 2).

21.5 Notification of amounts due

When making payments, the Commission will formally notify to the coordinator the amount due,specifying whether it concerns an interim payment or the payment of the balance.

For the payment of the balance, the notification will also specify the final grant amount.

In the case of reduction of the grant or recovery of undue amounts, the notification will be precededby the contradictory procedure set out in Articles 43 and 44.

21.6 Currency for payments

The Commission will make all payments in euro.

21.7 Payments to the coordinator — Distribution to the beneficiaries

Payments will be made to the coordinator.

Payments to the coordinator will discharge the Commission from its payment obligation.




35

The coordinator must distribute the payments between the beneficiaries without unjustified delay.

Pre-financing may however be distributed only:

(a) if the minimum number of beneficiaries set out in the call for proposals has acceded to theAgreement (see Article 56) and

(b) to beneficiaries that have acceded to the Agreement (see Article 56).

21.8 Bank account for payments

All payments will be made to the following bank account:

Name of bank: BANCA NAZIONALE DEL LAVORO SPAFull name of the account holder: ELETTRA SINCROTRONE TRIESTE SOCIEFull account number (including bank codes): ()IBAN code: IT53L0100502200000000200014

21.9 Costs of payment transfers

The cost of the payment transfers is borne as follows:

- the Commission bears the cost of transfers charged by its bank;

- the beneficiary bears the cost of transfers charged by its bank;

- the party causing a repetition of a transfer bears all costs of the repeated transfer.

21.10 Date of payment

Payments by the Commission are considered to have been carried out on the date when they aredebited to its account.


21.11.1 If the Commission does not pay within the payment deadlines (see above), the beneficiariesare entitled to late-payment interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank (ECB) for itsmain refinancing operations in euros (‘reference rate’), plus three and a half points. The reference rateis the rate in force on the first day of the month in which the payment deadline expires, as publishedin the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union.

If the late-payment interest is lower than or equal to EUR 200, it will be paid to the coordinator onlyupon request submitted within two months of receiving the late payment.

Late-payment interest is not due if all beneficiaries are EU Member States (including regional andlocal government authorities or other public bodies acting on behalf of a Member State for the purposeof this Agreement).

Suspension of the payment deadline or payments (see Articles 47 and 48) will not be considered aslate payment.




36

Late-payment interest covers the period running from the day following the due date for payment (seeabove), up to and including the date of payment.

Late-payment interest is not considered for the purposes of calculating the final grant amount.

21.11.2 If the coordinator breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced(see Article 43) and the Agreement or the participation of the coordinator may be terminated (seeArticle 50).


ARTICLE 22 — CHECKS, REVIEWS, AUDITS AND INVESTIGATIONS — EXTENSIONOF FINDINGS

22.1 Checks, reviews and audits by the Commission

22.1.1 Right to carry out checks

The Commission will — during the implementation of the action or afterwards — check the properimplementation of the action and compliance with the obligations under the Agreement, includingassessing deliverables and reports.

For this purpose the Commission may be assisted by external persons or bodies.

The Commission may also request additional information in accordance with Article 17. TheCommission may request beneficiaries to provide such information to it directly.

Information provided must be accurate, precise and complete and in the format requested, includingelectronic format.

22.1.2 Right to carry out reviews

The Commission may — during the implementation of the action or afterwards — carry out reviewson the proper implementation of the action (including assessment of deliverables and reports),compliance with the obligations under the Agreement and continued scientific or technologicalrelevance of the action.

Reviews may be started up to two years after the payment of the balance. They will be formallynotified to the coordinator or beneficiary concerned and will be considered to have started on the dateof the formal notification.

If the review is carried out on a third party (see Articles 10 to 16), the beneficiary concerned mustinform the third party.

The Commission may carry out reviews directly (using its own staff) or indirectly (using externalpersons or bodies appointed to do so). It will inform the coordinator or beneficiary concerned of theidentity of the external persons or bodies. They have the right to object to the appointment on groundsof commercial confidentiality.

The coordinator or beneficiary concerned must provide — within the deadline requested — anyinformation and data in addition to deliverables and reports already submitted (including information




37

on the use of resources). The Commission may request beneficiaries to provide such information toit directly.

The coordinator or beneficiary concerned may be requested to participate in meetings, including withexternal experts.

For on-the-spot reviews, the beneficiaries must allow access to their sites and premises, including toexternal persons or bodies, and must ensure that information requested is readily available.


On the basis of the review findings, a ‘review report’ will be drawn up.

The Commission will formally notify the review report to the coordinator or beneficiary concerned,which has 30 days to formally notify observations (‘contradictory review procedure’).

Reviews (including review reports) are in the language of the Agreement.

22.1.3 Right to carry out audits

The Commission may — during the implementation of the action or afterwards — carry out audits onthe proper implementation of the action and compliance with the obligations under the Agreement.

Audits may be started up to two years after the payment of the balance. They will be formally notifiedto the coordinator or beneficiary concerned and will be considered to have started on the date of theformal notification.

If the audit is carried out on a third party (see Articles 10 to 16), the beneficiary concerned mustinform the third party.

The Commission may carry out audits directly (using its own staff) or indirectly (using externalpersons or bodies appointed to do so). It will inform the coordinator or beneficiary concerned of theidentity of the external persons or bodies. They have the right to object to the appointment on groundsof commercial confidentiality.

The coordinator or beneficiary concerned must provide — within the deadline requested — anyinformation (including complete accounts, individual salary statements or other personal data) toverify compliance with the Agreement. The Commission may request beneficiaries to provide suchinformation to it directly.

For on-the-spot audits, the beneficiaries must allow access to their sites and premises, including toexternal persons or bodies, and must ensure that information requested is readily available.


On the basis of the audit findings, a ‘draft audit report’ will be drawn up.

The Commission will formally notify the draft audit report to the coordinator or beneficiary concerned,which has 30 days to formally notify observations (‘contradictory audit procedure’). This periodmay be extended by the Commission in justified cases.




38

The ‘final audit report’ will take into account observations by the coordinator or beneficiaryconcerned. The report will be formally notified to it.

Audits (including audit reports) are in the language of the Agreement.

The Commission may also access the beneficiaries’ statutory records for the periodical assessmentof unit costs or flat-rate amounts.

22.2 Investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)

Under Regulations No 883/201314 and No 2185/9615 (and in accordance with their provisions andprocedures) the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) may — at any moment during implementationof the action or afterwards — carry out investigations, including on-the-spot checks and inspections,to establish whether there has been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financialinterests of the EU.

22.3 Checks and audits by the European Court of Auditors (ECA)

Under Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 161of the Financial Regulation No 966/201217, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) may — at anymoment during implementation of the action or afterwards — carry out audits.

The ECA has the right of access for the purpose of checks and audits.

22.4 Checks, reviews, audits and investigations for international organisations

In conformity with its financial regulations, the European Union, including the European Anti-FraudOffice (OLAF) and the European Court of Auditors (ECA), may undertake, including on the spot,checks, reviews audits and investigations.

This Article will be applied in accordance with any specific agreement concluded in this respect bythe international organisation and the European Union.

22.5 Consequences of findings in checks, reviews, audits and investigations — Extension offindings

22.5.1 Findings in this grant

Findings in checks, reviews, audits or investigations carried out in the context of this grant may leadto the rejection of ineligible costs (see Article 42), reduction of the grant (see Article 43), recovery ofundue amounts (see Article 44) or to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6.

14 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L 248,18.09.2013, p. 1).

15 Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/1996 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspectionscarried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and otherirregularities (OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 2).

17 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on thefinancial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No1605/2002 (OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1).




39

Rejection of costs or reduction of the grant after the payment of the balance will lead to a revised finalgrant amount (see Article 5.4).

Findings in checks, reviews, audits or investigations may lead to a request for amendment for themodification of Annex 1 (see Article 55).

Checks, reviews, audits or investigations that find systemic or recurrent errors, irregularities, fraud orbreach of obligations may also lead to consequences in other EU or Euratom grants awarded undersimilar conditions (‘extension of findings from this grant to other grants’).

Moreover, findings arising from an OLAF investigation may lead to criminal prosecution undernational law.

22.5.2 Findings in other grants

The Commission may extend findings from other grants to this grant (‘extension of findings fromother grants to this grant’), if:

(a) the beneficiary concerned is found, in other EU or Euratom grants awarded under similarconditions, to have committed systemic or recurrent errors, irregularities, fraud or breach ofobligations that have a material impact on this grant and

(b) those findings are formally notified to the beneficiary concerned — together with the list ofgrants affected by the findings — no later than two years after the payment of the balance ofthis grant.

The extension of findings may lead to the rejection of costs (see Article 42), reduction of the grant(see Article 43), recovery of undue amounts (see Article 44), suspension of payments (see Article 48),suspension of the action implementation (see Article 49) or termination (see Article 50).

22.5.3 Procedure

The Commission will formally notify the beneficiary concerned the systemic or recurrent errors andits intention to extend these audit findings, together with the list of grants affected.

22.5.3.1 If the findings concern eligibility of costs: the formal notification will include:

(a) an invitation to submit observations on the list of grants affected by the findings;

(b) the request to submit revised financial statements for all grants affected;

(c) the correction rate for extrapolation established by the Commission on the basis of thesystemic or recurrent errors, to calculate the amounts to be rejected if the beneficiary concerned:

(i) considers that the submission of revised financial statements is not possible or practicableor

(ii) does not submit revised financial statements.

The beneficiary concerned has 90 days from receiving notification to submit observations, revisedfinancial statements or to propose a duly substantiated alternative correction method. This periodmay be extended by the Commission in justified cases.




40

The Commission may then start a rejection procedure in accordance with Article 42, on the basis of:

- the revised financial statements, if approved;

- the proposed alternative correction method, if accepted

or

- the initially notified correction rate for extrapolation, if it does not receive any observationsor revised financial statements, does not accept the observations or the proposed alternativecorrection method or does not approve the revised financial statements.

22.5.3.2 If the findings concern substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or serious breach ofobligations: the formal notification will include:

(a) an invitation to submit observations on the list of grants affected by the findings and

(b) the flat-rate the Commission intends to apply according to the principle of proportionality.

The beneficiary concerned has 90 days from receiving notification to submit observations or topropose a duly substantiated alternative flat-rate.

The Commission may then start a reduction procedure in accordance with Article 43, on the basis of:

- the proposed alternative flat-rate, if accepted

or

- the initially notified flat-rate, if it does not receive any observations or does not accept theobservations or the proposed alternative flat-rate.


If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, any insufficiently substantiated costswill be ineligible (see Article 6) and will be rejected (see Article 42).


ARTICLE 23 — EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE ACTION

23.1 Right to evaluate the impact of the action

The Commission may carry out interim and final evaluations of the impact of the action measuredagainst the objective of the EU programme.

Evaluations may be started during implementation of the action and up to five years after the paymentof the balance. The evaluation is considered to start on the date of the formal notification to thecoordinator or beneficiaries.

The Commission may make these evaluations directly (using its own staff) or indirectly (using externalbodies or persons it has authorised to do so).




41

The coordinator or beneficiaries must provide any information relevant to evaluate the impact of theaction, including information in electronic format.


If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the Commission may apply themeasures described in Chapter 6.

SECTION 3 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO BACKGROUND ANDRESULTS

SUBSECTION 1 GENERAL

ARTICLE 23a — MANAGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

23a.1 Obligation to take measures to implement the Commission Recommendation on themanagement of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities

Beneficiaries that are universities or other public research organisations must take measures toimplement the principles set out in Points 1 and 2 of the Code of Practice annexed to the CommissionRecommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities17.

This does not change the obligations set out in Subsections 2 and 3 of this Section.

The beneficiaries must ensure that researchers and third parties involved in the action are aware ofthem.

23a.2 Consequences of non-compliance

If a beneficiary breaches its obligations under this Article, the Commission may apply any of themeasures described in Chapter 6.

SUBSECTION 2 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO BACKGROUND

ARTICLE 24 — AGREEMENT ON BACKGROUND

24.1 Agreement on background

The beneficiaries must identify and agree (in writing) on the background for the action (‘agreementon background’).

‘Background’ means any data, know-how or information — whatever its form or nature (tangible orintangible), including any rights such as intellectual property rights — that:

(a) is held by the beneficiaries before they acceded to the Agreement, and

17 Commission Recommendation C(2008) 1329 of 10.4.2008 on the management of intellectual property in knowledgetransfer activities and the Code of Practice for universities and other public research institutions attached to thisrecommendation.




42

(b) is needed to implement the action or exploit the results.




ARTICLE 25 — ACCESS RIGHTS TO BACKGROUND

25.1 Exercise of access rights — Waiving of access rights — No sub-licensing

To exercise access rights, this must first be requested in writing (‘request for access’).

‘Access rights’ means rights to use results or background under the terms and conditions laid downin this Agreement.

Waivers of access rights are not valid unless in writing.

Unless agreed otherwise, access rights do not include the right to sub-license.

25.2 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for implementing their own tasks under the action

The beneficiaries must give each other access — on a royalty-free basis — to background needed toimplement their own tasks under the action, unless the beneficiary that holds the background has —before acceding to the Agreement —:

(a) informed the other beneficiaries that access to its background is subject to legal restrictions orlimits, including those imposed by the rights of third parties (including personnel), or

(b) agreed with the other beneficiaries that access would not be on a royalty-free basis.

25.3 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for exploiting their own results

The beneficiaries must give each other access — under fair and reasonable conditions — tobackground needed for exploiting their own results, unless the beneficiary that holds the backgroundhas — before acceding to the Agreement — informed the other beneficiaries that access to itsbackground is subject to legal restrictions or limits, including those imposed by the rights of thirdparties (including personnel).

‘Fair and reasonable conditions’ means appropriate conditions, including possible financial termsor royalty-free conditions, taking into account the specific circumstances of the request for access, forexample the actual or potential value of the results or background to which access is requested and/orthe scope, duration or other characteristics of the exploitation envisaged.

Requests for access may be made — unless agreed otherwise — up to one year after the period setout in Article 3.

25.4 Access rights for affiliated entities

Unless otherwise agreed in the consortium agreement, access to background must also be given




43

— under fair and reasonable conditions (see above; Article 25.3) and unless it is subject to legalrestrictions or limits, including those imposed by the rights of third parties (including personnel) —to affiliated entities18 established in an EU Member State or ‘associated country’19, if this is neededto exploit the results generated by the beneficiaries to which they are affiliated.

Unless agreed otherwise (see above; Article 25.1), the affiliated entity concerned must make therequest directly to the beneficiary that holds the background.


25.5 Access rights for third parties

Not applicable




SUBSECTION 3 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO RESULTS

ARTICLE 26 — OWNERSHIP OF RESULTS

26.1 Ownership by the beneficiary that generates the results

Results are owned by the beneficiary that generates them.

‘Results’ means any (tangible or intangible) output of the action such as data, knowledge orinformation — whatever its form or nature, whether it can be protected or not — that is generated inthe action, as well as any rights attached to it, including intellectual property rights.

18 For the definition see Article 2.1(2) Rules for Participation Regulation No 1290/2013: ‘affiliated entity’ means anylegal entity that is:

- under the direct or indirect control of a participant, or- under the same direct or indirect control as the participant, or- directly or indirectly controlling a participant.

‘Control’ may take any of the following forms:(a) the direct or indirect holding of more than 50% of the nominal value of the issued share capital in the legal entity

concerned, or of a majority of the voting rights of the shareholders or associates of that entity;(b) the direct or indirect holding, in fact or in law, of decision-making powers in the legal entity concerned.

However the following relationships between legal entities shall not in themselves be deemed to constitute controllingrelationships:

(a) the same public investment corporation, institutional investor or venture-capital company has a direct or indirectholding of more than 50% of the nominal value of the issued share capital or a majority of voting rights of theshareholders or associates;

(b) the legal entities concerned are owned or supervised by the same public body.19 For the definition, see Article 2.1(3) of the Rules for Participation Regulation No 1290/2013: ‘associated country’

means a third country which is party to an international agreement with the Union, as identified in Article 7 of Horizon2020 Framework Programme Regulation No 1291/2013. Article 7 sets out the conditions for association of non-EUcountries to Horizon 2020.




44

26.2 Joint ownership by several beneficiaries

Two or more beneficiaries own results jointly if:

(a) they have jointly generated them and

(b) it is not possible to:

(i) establish the respective contribution of each beneficiary, or

(ii) separate them for the purpose of applying for, obtaining or maintaining their protection(see Article 27).

The joint owners must agree (in writing) on the allocation and terms of exercise of their joint ownership(‘joint ownership agreement’), to ensure compliance with their obligations under this Agreement.

Unless otherwise agreed in the joint ownership agreement, each joint owner may grant non-exclusivelicences to third parties to exploit jointly-owned results (without any right to sub-license), if the otherjoint owners are given:

(a) at least 45 days advance notice and

(b) fair and reasonable compensation.

Once the results have been generated, joint owners may agree (in writing) to apply another regimethan joint ownership (such as, for instance, transfer to a single owner (see Article 30) with accessrights for the others).

26.3 Rights of third parties (including personnel)

If third parties (including personnel) may claim rights to the results, the beneficiary concerned mustensure that it complies with its obligations under the Agreement.

If a third party generates results, the beneficiary concerned must obtain all necessary rights (transfer,licences or other) from the third party, in order to be able to respect its obligations as if those resultswere generated by the beneficiary itself.

If obtaining the rights is impossible, the beneficiary must refrain from using the third party to generatethe results.

26.4 EU ownership, to protect results

26.4.1 The EU may — with the consent of the beneficiary concerned — assume ownership of resultsto protect them, if a beneficiary intends — up to four years after the period set out in Article 3 — todisseminate its results without protecting them, except in any of the following cases:

(a) the lack of protection is because protecting the results is not possible, reasonable or justified(given the circumstances);

(b) the lack of protection is because there is a lack of potential for commercial or industrialexploitation, or




45

(c) the beneficiary intends to transfer the results to another beneficiary or third party establishedin an EU Member State or associated country, which will protect them.

Before the results are disseminated and unless any of the cases above under Points (a), (b) or (c)applies, the beneficiary must formally notify the Commission and at the same time inform it of anyreasons for refusing consent. The beneficiary may refuse consent only if it can show that its legitimateinterests would suffer significant harm.

If the Commission decides to assume ownership, it will formally notify the beneficiary concernedwithin 45 days of receiving notification.

No dissemination relating to these results may take place before the end of this period or, if theCommission takes a positive decision, until it has taken the necessary steps to protect the results.

26.4.2 The EU may — with the consent of the beneficiary concerned — assume ownership of resultsto protect them, if a beneficiary intends — up to four years after the period set out in Article 3 — tostop protecting them or not to seek an extension of protection, except in any of the following cases:

(a) the protection is stopped because of a lack of potential for commercial or industrial exploitation;

(b) an extension would not be justified given the circumstances.

A beneficiary that intends to stop protecting results or not seek an extension must — unless any ofthe cases above under Points (a) or (b) applies — formally notify the Commission at least 60 daysbefore the protection lapses or its extension is no longer possible and at the same time inform it of anyreasons for refusing consent. The beneficiary may refuse consent only if it can show that its legitimateinterests would suffer significant harm.

If the Commission decides to assume ownership, it will formally notify the beneficiary concernedwithin 45 days of receiving notification.



Such breaches may also lead to the any of the other measures described in Chapter 6.

ARTICLE 27 — PROTECTION OF RESULTS — VISIBILITY OF EU FUNDING

27.1 Obligation to protect the results

Each beneficiary must examine the possibility of protecting its results and must adequately protectthem — for an appropriate period and with appropriate territorial coverage — if:

(a) the results can reasonably be expected to be commercially or industrially exploited and

(b) protecting them is possible, reasonable and justified (given the circumstances).

When deciding on protection, the beneficiary must consider its own legitimate interests and thelegitimate interests (especially commercial) of the other beneficiaries.




46

27.2 EU ownership, to protect the results

If a beneficiary intends not to protect its results, to stop protecting them or not seek an extension ofprotection, the EU may — under certain conditions (see Article 26.4) — assume ownership to ensuretheir (continued) protection.

27.3 Information on EU funding

Applications for protection of results (including patent applications) filed by or on behalf of abeneficiary must — unless the Commission requests or agrees otherwise or unless it is impossible— include the following:

“The project leading to this application has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 777431”.



Such a breach may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6.

ARTICLE 28 — EXPLOITATION OF RESULTS

28.1 Obligation to exploit the results

Each beneficiary must — up to four years after the period set out in Article 3 — take measures aimingto ensure ‘exploitation’ of its results (either directly or indirectly, in particular through transfer orlicensing; see Article 30) by:

(a) using them in further research activities (outside the action);

(b) developing, creating or marketing a product or process;

(c) creating and providing a service, or

(d) using them in standardisation activities.

This does not change the security obligations in Article 37, which still apply.

28.2 Results that could contribute to European or international standards — Information onEU funding

If results are incorporated in a standard, the beneficiary concerned must — unless the Commissionrequests or agrees otherwise or unless it is impossible — ask the standardisation body to include thefollowing statement in (information related to) the standard:

“Results incorporated in this standard received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 researchand innovation programme under grant agreement No 777431”.





47

If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced inaccordance with Article 43.


ARTICLE 29 — DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS — OPEN ACCESS — VISIBILITY OFEU FUNDING

29.1 Obligation to disseminate results

Unless it goes against their legitimate interests, each beneficiary must — as soon as possible —‘disseminate’ its results by disclosing them to the public by appropriate means (other than thoseresulting from protecting or exploiting the results), including in scientific publications (in anymedium).

This does not change the obligation to protect results in Article 27, the confidentiality obligations inArticle 36, the security obligations in Article 37 or the obligations to protect personal data in Article 39,all of which still apply.

A beneficiary that intends to disseminate its results must give advance notice to the other beneficiariesof — unless agreed otherwise — at least 45 days, together with sufficient information on the resultsit will disseminate.

Any other beneficiary may object within — unless agreed otherwise — 30 days of receivingnotification, if it can show that its legitimate interests in relation to the results or background wouldbe significantly harmed. In such cases, the dissemination may not take place unless appropriate stepsare taken to safeguard these legitimate interests.

If a beneficiary intends not to protect its results, it may — under certain conditions (see Article 26.4.1)— need to formally notify the Commission before dissemination takes place.

29.2 Open access to scientific publications

Each beneficiary must ensure open access (free of charge online access for any user) to allpeer-reviewed scientific publications relating to its results.

In particular, it must:

(a) as soon as possible and at the latest on publication, deposit a machine-readable electroniccopy of the published version or final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication in arepository for scientific publications;

Moreover, the beneficiary must aim to deposit at the same time the research data needed tovalidate the results presented in the deposited scientific publications.

(b) ensure open access to the deposited publication — via the repository — at the latest:

(i) on publication, if an electronic version is available for free via the publisher, or

(ii) within six months of publication (twelve months for publications in the social sciencesand humanities) in any other case.




48

(c) ensure open access — via the repository — to the bibliographic metadata that identify thedeposited publication.

The bibliographic metadata must be in a standard format and must include all of the following:

- the terms “European Union (EU)” and “Horizon 2020”;

- the name of the action, acronym and grant number;

- the publication date, and length of embargo period if applicable, and

- a persistent identifier.

29.3 Open access to research data

Regarding the digital research data generated in the action (‘data’), the beneficiaries must:

(a) deposit in a research data repository and take measures to make it possible for third parties toaccess, mine, exploit, reproduce and disseminate — free of charge for any user — the following:

(i) the data, including associated metadata, needed to validate the results presented inscientific publications as soon as possible;

(ii) other data, including associated metadata, as specified and within the deadlines laid downin the 'data management plan' (see Annex 1);

(b) provide information — via the repository — about tools and instruments at the disposal of thebeneficiaries and necessary for validating the results (and — where possible — provide thetools and instruments themselves).

This does not change the obligation to protect results in Article 27, the confidentiality obligations inArticle 36, the security obligations in Article 37 or the obligations to protect personal data in Article 39,all of which still apply.

As an exception, the beneficiaries do not have to ensure open access to specific parts of their researchdata if the achievement of the action's main objective, as described in Annex 1, would be jeopardisedby making those specific parts of the research data openly accessible. In this case, the data managementplan must contain the reasons for not giving access.

29.4 Information on EU funding — Obligation and right to use the EU emblem

Unless the Commission requests or agrees otherwise or unless it is impossible, any dissemination ofresults (in any form, including electronic) must:

(a) display the EU emblem and

(b) include the following text:

“This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovationprogramme under grant agreement No 777431”.

When displayed together with another logo, the EU emblem must have appropriate prominence.




49

For the purposes of their obligations under this Article, the beneficiaries may use the EU emblemwithout first obtaining approval from the Commission.

This does not however give them the right to exclusive use.

Moreover, they may not appropriate the EU emblem or any similar trademark or logo, either byregistration or by any other means.

29.5 Disclaimer excluding Commission responsibility

Any dissemination of results must indicate that it reflects only the author's view and that theCommission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.




ARTICLE 30 — TRANSFER AND LICENSING OF RESULTS

30.1 Transfer of ownership

Each beneficiary may transfer ownership of its results.

It must however ensure that its obligations under Articles 26.2, 26.4, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 also applyto the new owner and that this owner has the obligation to pass them on in any subsequent transfer.


Unless agreed otherwise (in writing) for specifically-identified third parties or unless impossible underapplicable EU and national laws on mergers and acquisitions, a beneficiary that intends to transferownership of results must give at least 45 days advance notice (or less if agreed in writing) to theother beneficiaries that still have (or still may request) access rights to the results. This notificationmust include sufficient information on the new owner to enable any beneficiary concerned to assessthe effects on its access rights.

Unless agreed otherwise (in writing) for specifically-identified third parties, any other beneficiarymay object within 30 days of receiving notification (or less if agreed in writing), if it can show thatthe transfer would adversely affect its access rights. In this case, the transfer may not take place untilagreement has been reached between the beneficiaries concerned.

30.2 Granting licenses

Each beneficiary may grant licences to its results (or otherwise give the right to exploit them), if:

(a) this does not impede the access rights under Article 31 and

(b) not applicable.




50

In addition to Points (a) and (b), exclusive licences for results may be granted only if all the otherbeneficiaries concerned have waived their access rights (see Article 31.1).

This does not change the dissemination obligations in Article 29 or security obligations in Article 37,which still apply.

30.3 Commission right to object to transfers or licensing

Not applicable




ARTICLE 31 — ACCESS RIGHTS TO RESULTS

31.1 Exercise of access rights — Waiving of access rights — No sub-licensing

The conditions set out in Article 25.1 apply.

The obligations set out in this Article do not change the security obligations in Article 37, which stillapply.

31.2 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for implementing their own tasks under the action

The beneficiaries must give each other access — on a royalty-free basis — to results needed forimplementing their own tasks under the action.

31.3 Access rights for other beneficiaries, for exploiting their own results

The beneficiaries must give each other — under fair and reasonable conditions (see Article 25.3) —access to results needed for exploiting their own results.


31.4 Access rights of affiliated entities

Unless agreed otherwise in the consortium agreement, access to results must also be given — underfair and reasonable conditions (Article 25.3) — to affiliated entities established in an EU MemberState or associated country, if this is needed for those entities to exploit the results generated by thebeneficiaries to which they are affiliated.

Unless agreed otherwise (see above; Article 31.1), the affiliated entity concerned must make any suchrequest directly to the beneficiary that owns the results.





51

31.5 Access rights for the EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies and EU Member States

The beneficiaries must give access to their results — on a royalty-free basis — to EU institutions,bodies, offices or agencies, for developing, implementing or monitoring EU policies or programmes.

Such access rights are limited to non-commercial and non-competitive use.

This does not change the right to use any material, document or information received from thebeneficiaries for communication and publicising activities (see Article 38.2).

31.6 Access rights for third parties

Not applicable




SECTION 4 OTHER RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

ARTICLE 32 — RECRUITMENT AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR RESEARCHERS

32.1 Obligation to take measures to implement the European Charter for Researchers andCode of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers

The beneficiaries must take all measures to implement the principles set out in the CommissionRecommendation on the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for theRecruitment of Researchers21, in particular regarding:

- working conditions;

- transparent recruitment processes based on merit, and

- career development.

The beneficiaries must ensure that researchers and third parties involved in the action are aware ofthem.



ARTICLE 33 — GENDER EQUALITY

21 Commission Recommendation 2005/251/EC of 11 March 2005 on the European Charter for Researchers and on a Codeof Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers (OJ L 75, 22.3.2005, p. 67).




52

33.1 Obligation to aim for gender equality

The beneficiaries must take all measures to promote equal opportunities between men and women inthe implementation of the action. They must aim, to the extent possible, for a gender balance at alllevels of personnel assigned to the action, including at supervisory and managerial level.



ARTICLE 34 — ETHICS AND RESEARCH INTEGRITY

34.1 Obligation to comply with ethical and research integrity principles

The beneficiaries must carry out the action in compliance with:

(a) ethical principles (including the highest standards of research integrity)

and

(b) applicable international, EU and national law.

Funding will not be granted for activities carried out outside the EU if they are prohibited in allMember States or for activities which destroy human embryos (for example, for obtaining stem cells).

The beneficiaries must ensure that the activities under the action have an exclusive focus on civilapplications.

The beneficiaries must ensure that the activities under the action do not:

(a) aim at human cloning for reproductive purposes;

(b) intend to modify the genetic heritage of human beings which could make such changes heritable(with the exception of research relating to cancer treatment of the gonads, which may befinanced), or

(c) intend to create human embryos solely for the purpose of research or for the purpose of stemcell procurement, including by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer.

The beneficiaries must respect the highest standards of research integrity — as set out, for instance,in the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity22.

This implies notably compliance with the following essential principles:

- honesty;

- reliability;

22 The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity of ALLEA (All European Academies) and ESF (EuropeanScience Foundation) of March 2011.http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf


http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf



53

- objectivity;

- impartiality;

- open communication;

- duty of care;

- fairness and

- responsibility for future science generations.

This means that beneficiaries must ensure that persons carrying out research tasks:

- present their research goals and intentions in an honest and transparent manner;

- design their research carefully and conduct it in a reliable fashion, taking its impact on societyinto account;

- use techniques and methodologies (including for data collection and management) that areappropriate for the field(s) concerned;

- exercise due care for the subjects of research — be they human beings, animals, theenvironment or cultural objects;

- ensure objectivity, accuracy and impartiality when disseminating the results;

- allow — in addition to the open access obligations under Article 29.3 as much as possible andtaking into account the legitimate interest of the beneficiaries — access to research data, inorder to enable research to be reproduced;

- make the necessary references to their work and that of other researchers;

- refrain from practicing any form of plagiarism, data falsification or fabrication;

- avoid double funding, conflicts of interest and misrepresentation of credentials or other researchmisconduct.

34.2 Activities raising ethical issues

Activities raising ethical issues must comply with the ‘ethics requirements’ set out as deliverablesin Annex 1.

Before the beginning of an activity raising an ethical issue, each beneficiary must have obtained:

(a) any ethics committee opinion required under national law and

(b) any notification or authorisation for activities raising ethical issues required under national and/or European law

needed for implementing the action tasks in question.

The documents must be kept on file and be submitted upon request by the coordinator to theCommission (see Article 52). If they are not in English, they must be submitted together with




54

an English summary, which shows that the action tasks in question are covered and includes theconclusions of the committee or authority concerned (if available).

34.3 Activities involving human embryos or human embryonic stem cells

Activities involving research on human embryos or human embryonic stem cells may be carried out,in addition to Article 34.1, only if:

- they are set out in Annex 1 or

- the coordinator has obtained explicit approval (in writing) from the Commission (seeArticle 52).


If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (seeArticle 43) and the Agreement or participation of the beneficiary may be terminated (see Article 50).


ARTICLE 35 — CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

35.1 Obligation to avoid a conflict of interests

The beneficiaries must take all measures to prevent any situation where the impartial and objectiveimplementation of the action is compromised for reasons involving economic interest, political ornational affinity, family or emotional ties or any other shared interest (‘conflict of interests’).

They must formally notify to the Commission without delay any situation constituting or likely tolead to a conflict of interests and immediately take all the necessary steps to rectify this situation.

The Commission may verify that the measures taken are appropriate and may require additionalmeasures to be taken by a specified deadline.


If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (seeArticle 43) and the Agreement or participation of the beneficiary may be terminated (see Article 50).


ARTICLE 36 — CONFIDENTIALITY

36.1 General obligation to maintain confidentiality

During implementation of the action and for four years after the period set out in Article 3, theparties must keep confidential any data, documents or other material (in any form) that is identifiedas confidential at the time it is disclosed (‘confidential information’).

If a beneficiary requests, the Commission may agree to keep such information confidential for anadditional period beyond the initial four years.




55

If information has been identified as confidential only orally, it will be considered to be confidentialonly if this is confirmed in writing within 15 days of the oral disclosure.

Unless otherwise agreed between the parties, they may use confidential information only to implementthe Agreement.

The beneficiaries may disclose confidential information to their personnel or third parties involvedin the action only if they:

(a) need to know to implement the Agreement and

(b) are bound by an obligation of confidentiality.


The Commission may disclose confidential information to its staff, other EU institutions and bodies.It may disclose confidential information to third parties, if:

(a) this is necessary to implement the Agreement or safeguard the EU's financial interests and

(b) the recipients of the information are bound by an obligation of confidentiality.

Under the conditions set out in Article 4 of the Rules for Participation Regulation No 1290/201323,the Commission must moreover make available information on the results to other EU institutions,bodies, offices or agencies as well as Member States or associated countries.

The confidentiality obligations no longer apply if:

(a) the disclosing party agrees to release the other party;

(b) the information was already known by the recipient or is given to him without obligation ofconfidentiality by a third party that was not bound by any obligation of confidentiality;

(c) the recipient proves that the information was developed without the use of confidentialinformation;

(d) the information becomes generally and publicly available, without breaching anyconfidentiality obligation, or

(e) the disclosure of the information is required by EU or national law.




ARTICLE 37 — SECURITY-RELATED OBLIGATIONS

23 Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 laying down therules for participation and dissemination in "Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation(2014-2020)" (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013 p.81).




56

37.1 Results with a security recommendation

Not applicable

37.2 Classified information

Not applicable

37.3 Activities involving dual-use goods or dangerous materials and substances

Not applicable


Not applicable

ARTICLE 38 — PROMOTING THE ACTION — VISIBILITY OF EU FUNDING

38.1 Communication activities by beneficiaries

38.1.1 Obligation to promote the action and its results

The beneficiaries must promote the action and its results, by providing targeted information to multipleaudiences (including the media and the public) in a strategic and effective manner.

This does not change the dissemination obligations in Article 29, the confidentiality obligations inArticle 36 or the security obligations in Article 37, all of which still apply.

Before engaging in a communication activity expected to have a major media impact, the beneficiariesmust inform the Commission (see Article 52).

38.1.2 Information on EU funding — Obligation and right to use the EU emblem

Unless the Commission requests or agrees otherwise or unless it is impossible, any communicationactivity related to the action (including in electronic form, via social media, etc.) and anyinfrastructure, equipment and major results funded by the grant must:

(a) display the EU emblem and

(b) include the following text:

For communication activities: “This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 777431”.

For infrastructure, equipment and major results: “This [infrastructure][equipment][insert type of result] ispart of a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovationprogramme under grant agreement No 777431”.

When displayed together with another logo, the EU emblem must have appropriate prominence.

For the purposes of their obligations under this Article, the beneficiaries may use the EU emblemwithout first obtaining approval from the Commission.

This does not, however, give them the right to exclusive use.




57

Moreover, they may not appropriate the EU emblem or any similar trademark or logo, either byregistration or by any other means.

38.1.3 Disclaimer excluding Commission responsibility

Any communication activity related to the action must indicate that it reflects only the author's viewand that the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

38.2 Communication activities by the Commission

38.2.1 Right to use beneficiaries’ materials, documents or information

The Commission may use, for its communication and publicising activities, information relatingto the action, documents notably summaries for publication and public deliverables as well as anyother material, such as pictures or audio-visual material received from any beneficiary (including inelectronic form).

This does not change the confidentiality obligations in Article 36 and the security obligations inArticle 37, all of which still apply.

If the Commission’s use of these materials, documents or information would risk compromisinglegitimate interests, the beneficiary concerned may request the Commission not to use it (seeArticle 52).

The right to use a beneficiary’s materials, documents and information includes:

(a) use for its own purposes (in particular, making them available to persons working for theCommission or any other EU institution, body, office or agency or body or institutions in EUMember States; and copying or reproducing them in whole or in part, in unlimited numbers);

(b) distribution to the public (in particular, publication as hard copies and in electronic or digitalformat, publication on the internet, as a downloadable or non-downloadable file, broadcastingby any channel, public display or presentation, communicating through press informationservices, or inclusion in widely accessible databases or indexes);

(c) editing or redrafting for communication and publicising activities (including shortening,summarising, inserting other elements (such as meta-data, legends, other graphic, visual, audioor text elements), extracting parts (e.g. audio or video files), dividing into parts, use in acompilation);

(d) translation;

(e) giving access in response to individual requests under Regulation No 1049/200125, withoutthe right to reproduce or exploit;

(f) storage in paper, electronic or other form;

(g) archiving, in line with applicable document-management rules, and

25 Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public accessto European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.




58

(h) the right to authorise third parties to act on its behalf or sub-license the modes of use set outin Points (b), (c), (d) and (f) to third parties if needed for the communication and publicisingactivities of the Commission.

If the right of use is subject to rights of a third party (including personnel of the beneficiary), thebeneficiary must ensure that it complies with its obligations under this Agreement (in particular, byobtaining the necessary approval from the third parties concerned).

Where applicable (and if provided by the beneficiaries), the Commission will insert the followinginformation:

“© – [year] – [name of the copyright owner]. All rights reserved. Licensed to the European Union (EU)under conditions.”




ARTICLE 39 — PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA

39.1 Processing of personal data by the Commission

Any personal data under the Agreement will be processed by the Commission under RegulationNo 45/200126 and according to the ‘notifications of the processing operations’ to the Data ProtectionOfficer (DPO) of the Commission (publicly accessible in the DPO register).

Such data will be processed by the ‘data controller’ of the Commission for the purposes ofimplementing, managing and monitoring the Agreement or protecting the financial interests of theEU or Euratom (including checks, reviews, audits and investigations; see Article 22).

The persons whose personal data are processed have the right to access and correct their own personaldata. For this purpose, they must send any queries about the processing of their personal data to thedata controller, via the contact point indicated in the privacy statement(s) that are published on theCommission websites.

They also have the right to have recourse at any time to the European Data Protection Supervisor(EDPS).

39.2 Processing of personal data by the beneficiaries

The beneficiaries must process personal data under the Agreement in compliance with applicable EUand national law on data protection (including authorisations or notification requirements).

The beneficiaries may grant their personnel access only to data that is strictly necessary forimplementing, managing and monitoring the Agreement.

26 Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protectionof individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the freemovement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.01.2001, p. 1).




59

The beneficiaries must inform the personnel whose personal data are collected and processed by theCommission. For this purpose, they must provide them with the privacy statement(s) (see above),before transmitting their data to the Commission.


If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under Article 39.2, the Commission may apply any ofthe measures described in Chapter 6.

ARTICLE 40 — ASSIGNMENTS OF CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT AGAINST THECOMMISSION

The beneficiaries may not assign any of their claims for payment against the Commission to anythird party, except if approved by the Commission on the basis of a reasoned, written request by thecoordinator (on behalf of the beneficiary concerned).

If the Commission has not accepted the assignment or the terms of it are not observed, the assignmentwill have no effect on it.

In no circumstances will an assignment release the beneficiaries from their obligations towards theCommission.

CHAPTER 5 DIVISION OF BENEFICIARIES’ ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES— RELATIONSHIP WITH COMPLEMENTARY BENEFICIARIES —RELATIONSHIP WITH PARTNERS OF A JOINT ACTION

ARTICLE 41 — DIVISION OF BENEFICIARIES’ ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES— RELATIONSHIP WITH COMPLEMENTARY BENEFICIARIES —RELATIONSHIP WITH PARTNERS OF A JOINT ACTION

41.1 Roles and responsibility towards the Commission

The beneficiaries have full responsibility for implementing the action and complying with theAgreement.

The beneficiaries are jointly and severally liable for the technical implementation of the action asdescribed in Annex 1. If a beneficiary fails to implement its part of the action, the other beneficiariesbecome responsible for implementing this part (without being entitled to any additional EU fundingfor doing so), unless the Commission expressly relieves them of this obligation.

The financial responsibility of each beneficiary is governed by Articles 44, 45 and 46.

41.2 Internal division of roles and responsibilities

The internal roles and responsibilities of the beneficiaries are divided as follows:

(a) Each beneficiary must:

(i) keep information stored in the Participant Portal Beneficiary Register (via the electronicexchange system) up to date (see Article 17);




60

(ii) inform the coordinator immediately of any events or circumstances likely to affectsignificantly or delay the implementation of the action (see Article 17);

(iii) submit to the coordinator in good time:

- individual financial statements for itself and, if required, certificates on the financialstatements (see Article 20);

- the data needed to draw up the technical reports (see Article 20);

- ethics committee opinions and notifications or authorisations for activities raisingethical issues (see Article 34);

- any other documents or information required by the Commission under the Agreement,unless the Agreement requires the beneficiary to submit this information directly to theCommission.

(b) The coordinator must:

(i) monitor that the action is implemented properly (see Article 7);

(ii) act as the intermediary for all communications between the beneficiaries and theCommission (in particular, providing the Commission with the information described inArticle 17), unless the Agreement specifies otherwise;

(iii) request and review any documents or information required by the Commission and verifytheir completeness and correctness before passing them on to the Commission;

(iv) submit the deliverables and reports to the Commission (see Articles 19 and 20);

(v) ensure that all payments are made to the other beneficiaries without unjustified delay (seeArticle 21);

(vi) inform the Commission of the amounts paid to each beneficiary, when required under theAgreement (see Articles 44 and 50) or requested by the Commission.

The coordinator may not delegate or subcontract the above-mentioned tasks to any otherbeneficiary or third party (including linked third parties).

41.3 Internal arrangements between beneficiaries — Consortium agreement

The beneficiaries must have internal arrangements regarding their operation and co-ordination toensure that the action is implemented properly. These internal arrangements must be set out in a written‘consortium agreement’ between the beneficiaries, which may cover:

- internal organisation of the consortium;

- management of access to the electronic exchange system;

- distribution of EU funding;

- additional rules on rights and obligations related to background and results (including whether




61

access rights remain or not, if a beneficiary is in breach of its obligations) (see Section 3 ofChapter 4);

- settlement of internal disputes;

- liability, indemnification and confidentiality arrangements between the beneficiaries.

The consortium agreement must not contain any provision contrary to the Agreement.

41.4 Relationship with complementary beneficiaries — Collaboration agreement

Not applicable

41.5 Relationship with partners of a joint action — Coordination agreement

Not applicable

CHAPTER 6 REJECTION OF COSTS — REDUCTION OF THE GRANT — RECOVERY— SANCTIONS — DAMAGES — SUSPENSION — TERMINATION —FORCE MAJEURE

SECTION 1 REJECTION OF COSTS — REDUCTION OF THE GRANT — RECOVERY— SANCTIONS

ARTICLE 42 — REJECTION OF INELIGIBLE COSTS

42.1 Conditions

The Commission will — after termination of the participation of a beneficiary, at the time ofan interim payment, at the payment of the balance or afterwards — reject any costs which areineligible (see Article 6), in particular following checks, reviews, audits or investigations (see Article22).

The rejection may also be based on the extension of findings from other grants to this grant (seeArticle 22.5.2).

42.2 Ineligible costs to be rejected — Calculation — Procedure

Ineligible costs will be rejected in full.

If the rejection of costs does not lead to a recovery (see Article 44), the Commission will formallynotify the coordinator or beneficiary concerned of the rejection of costs, the amounts and the reasonswhy (if applicable, together with the notification of amounts due; see Article 21.5). The coordinatoror beneficiary concerned may — within 30 days of receiving notification — formally notify theCommission of its disagreement and the reasons why.

If the rejection of costs leads to a recovery, the Commission will follow the contradictory procedurewith pre-information letter set out in Article 44.

42.3 Effects




62

If the Commission rejects costs at the time of an interim payment or the payment of the balance, itwill deduct them from the total eligible costs declared, for the action, in the periodic or final summaryfinancial statement (see Articles 20.3 and 20.4). It will then calculate the interim payment or paymentof the balance as set out in Articles 21.3 or 21.4.

If the Commission rejects costs after termination of the participation of a beneficiary, it will deductthem from the costs declared by the beneficiary in the termination report and include the rejection inthe calculation after termination (see Article 50.2 and 50.3).

If the Commission — after an interim payment but before the payment of the balance — rejectscosts declared in a periodic summary financial statement, it will deduct them from the total eligiblecosts declared, for the action, in the next periodic summary financial statement or in the final summaryfinancial statement. It will then calculate the interim payment or payment of the balance as set outin Articles 21.3 or 21.4.

If the Commission rejects costs after the payment of the balance, it will deduct the amount rejectedfrom the total eligible costs declared, by the beneficiary, in the final summary financial statement. Itwill then calculate the revised final grant amount as set out in Article 5.4.

ARTICLE 43 — REDUCTION OF THE GRANT

43.1 Conditions

The Commission may — after termination of the participation of a beneficiary, at the paymentof the balance or afterwards — reduce the grant amount (see Article 5.1), if :

(a) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf)has committed:

(i) substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or

(ii) serious breach of obligations under the Agreement or during the award procedure(including improper implementation of the action, submission of false information,failure to provide required information, breach of ethical principles) or

(b) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decision on its behalf)has committed — in other EU or Euratom grants awarded to it under similar conditions —systemic or recurrent errors, irregularities, fraud or serious breach of obligations that have amaterial impact on this grant (extension of findings from other grants to this grant; seeArticle 22.5.2).

43.2 Amount to be reduced — Calculation — Procedure

The amount of the reduction will be proportionate to the seriousness of the errors, irregularities orfraud or breach of obligations.

Before reduction of the grant, the Commission will formally notify a ‘pre-information letter’ to thecoordinator or beneficiary concerned:

- informing it of its intention to reduce the grant, the amount it intends to reduce and the reasonswhy and




63

- inviting it to submit observations within 30 days of receiving notification

If the Commission does not receive any observations or decides to pursue reduction despite theobservations it has received, it will formally notify confirmation of the reduction (if applicable,together with the notification of amounts due; see Article 21).

43.3 Effects

If the Commission reduces the grant after termination of the participation of a beneficiary, it willcalculate the reduced grant amount for that beneficiary and then determine the amount due to thatbeneficiary (see Article 50.2 and 50.3).

If the Commission reduces the grant at the payment of the balance, it will calculate the reduced grantamount for the action and then determine the amount due as payment of the balance (see Articles 5.3.4and 21.4).

If the Commission reduces the grant after the payment of the balance, it will calculate the revisedfinal grant amount for the beneficiary concerned (see Article 5.4). If the revised final grant amountfor the beneficiary concerned is lower than its share of the final grant amount, the Commission willrecover the difference (see Article 44).

ARTICLE 44 — RECOVERY OF UNDUE AMOUNTS

44.1 Amount to be recovered — Calculation — Procedure

The Commission will — after termination of the participation of a beneficiary, at the paymentof the balance or afterwards — claim back any amount that was paid, but is not due under theAgreement.

Each beneficiary’s financial responsibility in case of recovery is limited to its own debt, except forthe amount retained for the Guarantee Fund (see Article 21.4).

44.1.1 Recovery after termination of a beneficiary’s participation

If recovery takes place after termination of a beneficiary’s participation (including the coordinator), theCommission will claim back the undue amount from the beneficiary concerned, by formally notifyingit a debit note (see Article 50.2 and 50.3). This note will specify the amount to be recovered, the termsand the date for payment.

If payment is not made by the date specified in the debit note, the Commission will recover theamount:

(a) by ‘offsetting’ it — without the beneficiary’s consent — against any amounts owed to thebeneficiary concerned by the Commission or an executive agency (from the EU or Euratombudget).

In exceptional circumstances, to safeguard the EU’s financial interests, the Commission mayoffset before the payment date specified in the debit note;

(b) not applicable;

(c) by taking legal action (see Article 57) or by adopting an enforceable decision under




64

Article 299 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and Article 79(2) of theFinancial regulation No 966/2012.

If payment is not made by the date specified in the debit note, the amount to be recovered (see above)will be increased by late-payment interest at the rate set out in Article 21.11, from the day followingthe payment date in the debit note, up to and including the date the Commission receives full paymentof the amount.

Partial payments will be first credited against expenses, charges and late-payment interest and thenagainst the principal.

Bank charges incurred in the recovery process will be borne by the beneficiary, unlessDirective 2007/64/EC27 applies.

44.1.2 Recovery at payment of the balance

If the payment of the balance takes the form of a recovery (see Article 21.4), the Commission willformally notify a ‘pre-information letter’ to the coordinator:

- informing it of its intention to recover, the amount due as the balance and the reasons why;

- specifying that it intends to deduct the amount to be recovered from the amount retained forthe Guarantee Fund;

- requesting the coordinator to submit a report on the distribution of payments to the beneficiarieswithin 30 days of receiving notification, and

- inviting the coordinator to submit observations within 30 days of receiving notification.

If no observations are submitted or the Commission decides to pursue recovery despite theobservations it has received, it will confirm recovery (together with the notification of amounts due;see Article 21.5) and:

- pay the difference between the amount to be recovered and the amount retained for theGuarantee Fund, if the difference is positive or

- formally notify to the coordinator a debit note for the difference between the amount to berecovered and the amount retained for the Guarantee Fund, if the difference is negative. Thisnote will also specify the terms and the date for payment.

If the coordinator does not repay the Commission by the date in the debit note and has not submittedthe report on the distribution of payments: the Commission will recover the amount set out in thedebit note from the coordinator (see below).

If the coordinator does not repay the Commission by the date in the debit note, but has submitted thereport on the distribution of payments: the Commission will:

(a) identify the beneficiaries for which the amount calculated as follows is negative:

27 Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment servicesin the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealingDirective 97/5/EC (OJ L 319, 05.12.2007, p. 1).




65

{{{{beneficiary’s costs declared in the final summary financial statement and approved by theCommission multiplied by the reimbursement rate set out in Article 5.2 for the beneficiary concerned}

divided by

the EU contribution for the action calculated according to Article 5.3.1}multiplied by

the final grant amount (see Article 5.3)},

minus

{pre-financing and interim payments received by the beneficiary}}.

(b) formally notify to each beneficiary identified according to point (a) a debit note specifying theterms and date for payment. The amount of the debit note is calculated as follows:

{{amount calculated according to point (a) for the beneficiary concerned

divided by

the sum of the amounts calculated according to point (a) for all the beneficiaries identified according topoint (a)}

multiplied by

the amount set out in the debit note formally notified to the coordinator}.




(b) by drawing on the Guarantee Fund. The Commission will formally notify the beneficiaryconcerned the debit note on behalf of the Guarantee Fund and recover the amount:

(i) not applicable;

(ii) by taking legal action (see Article 57) or by adopting an enforceable decision underArticle 299 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and Article 79(2) of theFinancial Regulation No 966/2012.

If payment is not made by the date in the debit note, the amount to be recovered (see above) will beincreased by late-payment interest at the rate set out in Article 21.11, from the day following thepayment date in the debit note, up to and including the date the Commission receives full paymentof the amount.





66

Bank charges incurred in the recovery process will be borne by the beneficiary, unlessDirective 2007/64/EC applies.

44.1.3 Recovery of amounts after payment of the balance

If, for a beneficiary, the revised final grant amount (see Article 5.4) is lower than its share of the finalgrant amount, it must repay the difference to the Commission.

The beneficiary’s share of the final grant amount is calculated as follows:

{{{beneficiary’s costs declared in the final summary financial statement and approved by the Commissionmultiplied by the reimbursement rate set out in Article 5.2 for the beneficiary concerned}

divided by

the EU contribution for the action calculated according to Article 5.3.1}multiplied by

the final grant amount (see Article 5.3)}.

If the coordinator has not distributed amounts received (see Article 21.7), the Commission will alsorecover these amounts.

The Commission will formally notify a pre-information letter to the beneficiary concerned:

- informing it of its intention to recover, the due amount and the reasons why and

- inviting it to submit observations within 30 days of receiving notification.

If no observations are submitted or the Commission decides to pursue recovery despite theobservations it has received, it will confirm the amount to be recovered and formally notify to thebeneficiary concerned a debit note. This note will also specify the terms and the date for payment.




(b) by drawing on the Guarantee Fund. The Commission will formally notify the beneficiaryconcerned the debit note on behalf of the Guarantee Fund and recover the amount:

(i) not applicable;

(ii) by taking legal action (see Article 57) or by adopting an enforceable decision underArticle 299 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and Article 79(2) of theFinancial Regulation No 966/2012.

If payment is not made by the date in the debit note, the amount to be recovered (see above) will be




67

increased by late-payment interest at the rate set out in Article 21.11, from the day following thedate for payment in the debit note, up to and including the date the Commission receives full paymentof the amount.


Bank charges incurred in the recovery process will be borne by the beneficiary, unlessDirective 2007/64/EC applies.

ARTICLE 45 — ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS

In addition to contractual measures, the Commission may also adopt administrative sanctions underArticles 106 and 131(4) of the Financial Regulation No 966/2012 (i.e. exclusion from futureprocurement contracts, grants and expert contracts and/or financial penalties).

SECTION 2 LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES

ARTICLE 46 — LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES

46.1 Liability of the Commission

The Commission cannot be held liable for any damage caused to the beneficiaries or to third partiesas a consequence of implementing the Agreement, including for gross negligence.

The Commission cannot be held liable for any damage caused by any of the beneficiaries or thirdparties involved in the action, as a consequence of implementing the Agreement.

46.2 Liability of the beneficiaries

Except in case of force majeure (see Article 51), the beneficiaries must compensate the Commissionfor any damage it sustains as a result of the implementation of the action or because the action wasnot implemented in full compliance with the Agreement.

SECTION 3 SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION

ARTICLE 47 — SUSPENSION OF PAYMENT DEADLINE

47.1 Conditions

The Commission may — at any moment — suspend the payment deadline (see Article 21.2 to 21.4)if a request for payment (see Article 20) cannot be approved because:

(a) it does not comply with the provisions of the Agreement (see Article 20);

(b) the technical or financial reports have not been submitted or are not complete or additionalinformation is needed, or

(c) there is doubt about the eligibility of the costs declared in the financial statements and additionalchecks, reviews, audits or investigations are necessary.




68

47.2 Procedure

The Commission will formally notify the coordinator of the suspension and the reasons why.

The suspension will take effect the day notification is sent by the Commission (see Article 52).

If the conditions for suspending the payment deadline are no longer met, the suspension will be lifted— and the remaining period will resume.

If the suspension exceeds two months, the coordinator may request the Commission if the suspensionwill continue.

If the payment deadline has been suspended due to the non-compliance of the technical or financialreports (see Article 20) and the revised report or statement is not submitted or was submitted but is alsorejected, the Commission may also terminate the Agreement or the participation of the beneficiary(see Article 50.3.1(l)).

ARTICLE 48 — SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS

48.1 Conditions

The Commission may — at any moment — suspend payments, in whole or in part and for one ormore beneficiaries, if:

(a) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decision on its behalf)has committed or is suspected of having committed:


(ii) serious breach of obligations under the Agreement or during the award procedure(including improper implementation of the action, submission of false information,failure to provide required information, breach of ethical principles) or

(b) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decision on its behalf)has committed — in other EU or Euratom grants awarded to it under similar conditions —systemic or recurrent errors, irregularities, fraud or serious breach of obligations that have amaterial impact on this grant (extension of findings from other grants to this grant; seeArticle 22.5.2).

If payments are suspended for one or more beneficiaries, the Commission will make partial payment(s)for the part(s) not suspended. If suspension concerns the payment of the balance, — once suspensionis lifted — the payment or the recovery of the amount(s) concerned will be considered the paymentof the balance that closes the action.

48.2 Procedure

Before suspending payments, the Commission will formally notify the coordinator or beneficiaryconcerned:

- informing it of its intention to suspend payments and the reasons why and





69

If the Commission does not receive observations or decides to pursue the procedure despite theobservations it has received, it will formally notify confirmation of the suspension. Otherwise, it willformally notify that the suspension procedure is not continued.

The suspension will take effect the day the confirmation notification is sent by the Commission.

If the conditions for resuming payments are met, the suspension will be lifted. The Commission willformally notify the coordinator or beneficiary concerned.

During the suspension, the periodic report(s) for all reporting periods except the last one (seeArticle 20.3), must not contain any individual financial statements from the beneficiary concerned.The coordinator must include them in the next periodic report after the suspension is lifted or — ifsuspension is not lifted before the end of the action — in the last periodic report.

The beneficiaries may suspend implementation of the action (see Article 49.1) or terminate theAgreement or the participation of the beneficiary concerned (see Article 50.1 and 50.2).

ARTICLE 49 — SUSPENSION OF THE ACTION IMPLEMENTATION

49.1 Suspension of the action implementation, by the beneficiaries

49.1.1 Conditions

The beneficiaries may suspend implementation of the action or any part of it, if exceptionalcircumstances — in particular force majeure (see Article 51) — make implementation impossible orexcessively difficult.

49.1.2 Procedure

The coordinator must immediately formally notify to the Commission the suspension (see Article 52),stating:

- the reasons why and

- the expected date of resumption.

The suspension will take effect the day this notification is received by the Commission.

Once circumstances allow for implementation to resume, the coordinator must immediately formallynotify the Commission and request an amendment of the Agreement to set the date on which theaction will be resumed, extend the duration of the action and make other changes necessary to adaptthe action to the new situation (see Article 55) — unless the Agreement or the participation of abeneficiary has been terminated (see Article 50).

The suspension will be lifted with effect from the resumption date set out in the amendment. Thisdate may be before the date on which the amendment enters into force.

Costs incurred during suspension of the action implementation are not eligible (see Article 6).

49.2 Suspension of the action implementation, by the Commission

49.2.1 Conditions




70

The Commission may suspend implementation of the action or any part of it, if:

(a) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf)has committed or is suspected of having committed:


(ii) serious breach of obligations under the Agreement or during the award procedure(including improper implementation of the action, submission of false declaration, failureto provide required information, breach of ethical principles);

(b) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf)has committed — in other EU or Euratom grants awarded to it under similar conditions —systemic or recurrent errors, irregularities, fraud or serious breach of obligations that have amaterial impact on this grant (extension of findings from other grants to this grant; seeArticle 22.5.2), or

(c) the action is suspected of having lost its scientific or technological relevance.

49.2.2 Procedure

Before suspending implementation of the action, the Commission will formally notify the coordinatoror beneficiary concerned:

- informing it of its intention to suspend the implementation and the reasons why and


If the Commission does not receive observations or decides to pursue the procedure despite theobservations it has received, it will formally notify confirmation of the suspension. Otherwise, it willformally notify that the procedure is not continued.

The suspension will take effect five days after confirmation notification is received (or on a later datespecified in the notification).

It will be lifted if the conditions for resuming implementation of the action are met.

The coordinator or beneficiary concerned will be formally notified of the lifting and the Agreementwill be amended to set the date on which the action will be resumed, extend the duration of the actionand make other changes necessary to adapt the action to the new situation (see Article 55) — unlessthe Agreement has already been terminated (see Article 50).

The suspension will be lifted with effect from the resumption date set out in the amendment. This datemay be before the date on which the amendment enters into force.

Costs incurred during suspension are not eligible (see Article 6).

The beneficiaries may not claim damages due to suspension by the Commission (see Article 46).

Suspension of the action implementation does not affect the Commission’s right to terminate theAgreement or participation of a beneficiary (see Article 50), reduce the grant or recover amountsunduly paid (see Articles 43 and 44).




71

ARTICLE 50 — TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT OR OF THE PARTICIPATIONOF ONE OR MORE BENEFICIARIES

50.1 Termination of the Agreement, by the beneficiaries

50.1.1 Conditions and procedure

The beneficiaries may terminate the Agreement.

The coordinator must formally notify termination to the Commission (see Article 52), stating:

- the reasons why and

- the date the termination will take effect. This date must be after the notification.

If no reasons are given or if the Commission considers the reasons do not justify termination, theAgreement will be considered to have been ‘terminated improperly’.

The termination will take effect on the day specified in the notification.

50.1.2 Effects

The coordinator must — within 60 days from when termination takes effect — submit:

(i) a periodic report (for the open reporting period until termination; see Article 20.3) and

(ii) the final report (see Article 20.4).

If the Commission does not receive the reports within the deadline (see above), only costs which areincluded in an approved periodic report will be taken into account.

The Commission will calculate the final grant amount (see Article 5.3) and the balance (seeArticle 21.4) on the basis of the reports submitted. Only costs incurred until termination are eligible(see Article 6). Costs relating to contracts due for execution only after termination are not eligible.

Improper termination may lead to a reduction of the grant (see Article 43).

After termination, the beneficiaries’ obligations (in particular Articles 20, 22, 23, Section 3 ofChapter 4, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43 and 44) continue to apply.

50.2 Termination of the participation of one or more beneficiaries, by the beneficiaries

50.2.1 Conditions and procedure

The participation of one or more beneficiaries may be terminated by the coordinator, on request ofthe beneficiary concerned or on behalf of the other beneficiaries.

The coordinator must formally notify termination to the Commission (see Article 52) and inform thebeneficiary concerned.

If the coordinator’s participation is terminated without its agreement, the formal notification must bedone by another beneficiary (acting on behalf of the other beneficiaries).




72

The notification must include:

- the reasons why;

- the opinion of the beneficiary concerned (or proof that this opinion has been requested inwriting);

- the date the termination takes effect. This date must be after the notification, and

- a request for amendment (see Article 55), with a proposal for reallocation of the tasks and theestimated budget of the beneficiary concerned (see Annexes 1 and 2) and, if necessary, theaddition of one or more new beneficiaries (see Article 56). If termination takes effect after theperiod set out in Article 3, no request for amendment must be included unless the beneficiaryconcerned is the coordinator. In this case, the request for amendment must propose a newcoordinator.

If this information is not given or if the Commission considers that the reasons do not justifytermination, the participation will be considered to have been terminated improperly.

The termination will take effect on the day specified in the notification.

50.2.2 Effects


(i) a report on the distribution of payments to the beneficiary concerned and

(ii) if termination takes effect during the period set out in Article 3, a ‘termination report’from the beneficiary concerned, for the open reporting period until termination, containingan overview of the progress of the work, an overview of the use of resources, theindividual financial statement and, if applicable, the certificate on the financial statement(see Articles 20.3 and 20.4).

The information in the termination report must also be included in the periodic report for the nextreporting period (see Article 20.3).

If the request for amendment is rejected by the Commission, (because it calls into question the decisionawarding the grant or breaches the principle of equal treatment of applicants), the Agreement may beterminated according to Article 50.3.1(c).

If the request for amendment is accepted by the Commission, the Agreement is amended to introducethe necessary changes (see Article 55).

The Commission will calculate — on the basis of the periodic reports, the termination report and thereport on the distribution of payments — calculate the amount which is due to the beneficiary and ifthe (pre-financing and interim) payments received by the beneficiary exceed this amount.

The amount which is due is calculated in the following steps:

Step 1 — Application of the reimbursement rate to the eligible costs

The grant amount for the beneficiary is calculated by applying the reimbursement




73

rate(s) to the total eligible costs declared by the beneficiary in the termination reportand approved by the Commission.

Only costs incurred by the beneficiary concerned until termination takes effect areeligible (see Article 6). Costs relating to contracts due for execution only aftertermination are not eligible.

Step 2 — Reduction due to substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or serious breach ofobligations

In case of a reduction (see Article 43), the Commission will calculate the reducedgrant amount for the beneficiary by deducting the amount of the reduction(calculated in proportion to the seriousness of the errors, irregularities or fraud orbreach of obligations, in accordance with Article 43.2) from the grant amount forthe beneficiary.

If the payments received exceed the amounts due:

- if termination takes effect during the period set out in Article 3 and the request foramendment is accepted, the beneficiary concerned must repay to the coordinator the amountunduly received. The Commission will formally notify the amount unduly received andrequest the beneficiary concerned to repay it to the coordinator within 30 days of receivingnotification. If it does not repay the coordinator, the Commission will draw upon theGuarantee Fund to pay the coordinator and then notify a debit note on behalf of theGuarantee Fund to the beneficiary concerned (see Article 44);

- in all other cases, in particular if termination takes effect after the period set out in Article 3,the Commission will formally notify a debit note to the beneficiary concerned. If paymentis not made by the date in the debit note, the Guarantee Fund will pay to the Commission theamount due and the Commission will notify a debit note on behalf of the Guarantee Fundto the beneficiary concerned (see Article 44);

- if the beneficiary concerned is the former coordinator, it must repay the new coordinatoraccording to the procedure above, unless:

- termination takes effect after an interim payment and

- the former coordinator has not distributed amounts received as pre-financing orinterim payments (see Article 21.7).

In this case, the Commission will formally notify a debit note to the former coordinator.If payment is not made by the date in the debit note, the Guarantee Fund will pay to theCommission the amount due. The Commission will then pay the new coordinator and notifya debit note on behalf of the Guarantee Fund to the former coordinator (see Article 44).

If the payments received do not exceed the amounts due: amounts owed to the beneficiaryconcerned will be included in the next interim or final payment.

If the Commission does not receive the termination report within the deadline (see above), only costsincluded in an approved periodic report will be taken into account.




74

If the Commission does not receive the report on the distribution of payments within the deadline (seeabove), it will consider that:

- the coordinator did not distribute any payment to the beneficiary concerned and that

- the beneficiary concerned must not repay any amount to the coordinator.

Improper termination may lead to a reduction of the grant (see Article 43) or termination of theAgreement (see Article 50).

After termination, the concerned beneficiary’s obligations (in particular Articles 20, 22, 23, Section 3of Chapter 4, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43 and 44) continue to apply.

50.3 Termination of the Agreement or the participation of one or more beneficiaries, by theCommission

50.3.1 Conditions

The Commission may terminate the Agreement or the participation of one or more beneficiaries, if:

(a) one or more beneficiaries do not accede to the Agreement (see Article 56);

(b) a change to their legal, financial, technical, organisational or ownership situation is likely tosubstantially affect or delay the implementation of the action or calls into question the decisionto award the grant;

(c) following termination of participation for one or more beneficiaries (see above), the necessarychanges to the Agreement would call into question the decision awarding the grant or breachthe principle of equal treatment of applicants (see Article 55);

(d) implementation of the action is prevented by force majeure (see Article 51) or suspended bythe coordinator (see Article 49.1) and either:

(i) resumption is impossible, or

(ii) the necessary changes to the Agreement would call into question the decision awardingthe grant or breach the principle of equal treatment of applicants;

(e) a beneficiary is declared bankrupt, being wound up, having its affairs administered by thecourts, has entered into an arrangement with creditors, has suspended business activities, oris subject to any other similar proceedings or procedures under national law;

(f) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on itsbehalf) has been found guilty of professional misconduct, proven by any means;

(g) a beneficiary does not comply with the applicable national law on taxes and social security;

(h) the action has lost scientific or technological relevance;

(i) not applicable;

(j) not applicable;




75

(k) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on itsbehalf) has committed fraud, corruption, or is involved in a criminal organisation, moneylaundering or any other illegal activity;

(l) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on itsbehalf) has committed:


(ii) serious breach of obligations under the Agreement or during the award procedure(including improper implementation of the action, submission of false information,failure to provide required information, breach of ethical principles);

(m) a beneficiary (or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on itsbehalf) has committed — in other EU or Euratom grants awarded to it under similar conditions— systemic or recurrent errors, irregularities, fraud or serious breach of obligations that havea material impact on this grant (extension of findings from other grants to this grant; seeArticle 22.5.2).

(n) despite a specific request by the Commission, a beneficiary does not request — through thecoordinator — an amendment to the Agreement to end the participation of one of its linkedthird parties that is in one of the situations under points (e), (f), (g), (k), (l) or (m) and toreallocate its tasks.

50.3.2 Procedure

Before terminating the Agreement or participation of one or more beneficiaries, the Commission willformally notify the coordinator or beneficiary concerned:

- informing it of its intention to terminate and the reasons why and

- inviting it, within 30 days of receiving notification, to submit observations and — in case ofPoint (l.ii) above — to inform the Commission of the measures to ensure compliance with theobligations under the Agreement.

If the Commission does not receive observations or decides to pursue the procedure despite theobservations it has received, it will formally notify to the coordinator or beneficiary concernedconfirmation of the termination and the date it will take effect. Otherwise, it will formally notify thatthe procedure is not continued.

The termination will take effect:

- for terminations under Points (b), (c), (e), (g), (h), (j), (l.ii) and (n) above: on the day specifiedin the notification of the confirmation (see above);

- for terminations under Points (a), (d), (f), (i), (k), (l.i) and (m) above: on the day after thenotification of the confirmation is received.

50.3.3 Effects

(a) for termination of the Agreement:




76


(i) a periodic report (for the last open reporting period until termination; see Article 20.3)and

(ii) a final report (see Article 20.4).

If the Agreement is terminated for breach of the obligation to submit reports (see Articles 20.8and 50.3.1(l)), the coordinator may not submit any reports after termination.

If the Commission does not receive the reports within the deadline (see above), only costswhich are included in an approved periodic report will be taken into account.

The Commission will calculate the final grant amount (see Article 5.3) and the balance (seeArticle 21.4) on the basis of the reports submitted. Only costs incurred until termination takeseffect are eligible (see Article 6). Costs relating to contracts due for execution only aftertermination are not eligible.

This does not affect the Commission’s right to reduce the grant (see Article 43) or to imposeadministrative sanctions (Article 45).

The beneficiaries may not claim damages due to termination by the Commission (see Article46).

After termination, the beneficiaries’ obligations (in particular Articles 20, 22, 23, Section 3 ofChapter 4, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43 and 44) continue to apply.

(b) for termination of the participation of one or more beneficiaries:


(i) a report on the distribution of payments to the beneficiary concerned;

(ii) a request for amendment (see Article 55), with a proposal for reallocation of the tasks andestimated budget of the beneficiary concerned (see Annexes 1 and 2) and, if necessary,the addition of one or more new beneficiaries (see Article 56). If termination is notifiedafter the period set out in Article 3, no request for amendment must be submitted unlessthe beneficiary concerned is the coordinator. In this case the request for amendment mustpropose a new coordinator, and

(iii) if termination takes effect during the period set out in Article 3, a terminationreport from the beneficiary concerned, for the open reporting period until termination,containing an overview of the progress of the work, an overview of the use of resources,the individual financial statement and, if applicable, the certificate on the financialstatement (see Article 20).

The information in the termination report must also be included in the periodic report for thenext reporting period (see Article 20.3).

If the request for amendment is rejected by the Commission, (because it calls into questionthe decision awarding the grant or breaches the principle of equal treatment of applicants), theAgreement may be terminated according to Article 50.3.1(c).




77

If the request for amendment is accepted by the Commission, the Agreement is amended tointroduce the necessary changes (see Article 55).

The Commission will calculate — on the basis of the periodic reports, the termination reportand the report on the distribution of payments — calculate the amount which is due to thebeneficiary and if the (pre-financing and interim) payments received by the beneficiary exceedthis amount.

The amount which is due is calculated in the following steps:

Step 1 — Application of the reimbursement rate to the eligible costs

The grant amount for the beneficiary is calculated by applying thereimbursement rate(s) to the total eligible costs declared by the beneficiaryin the termination report and approved by the Commission.

Only costs incurred by the beneficiary concerned until termination takeseffect are eligible (see Article 6). Costs relating to contracts due for executiononly after termination are not eligible.

Step 2 — Reduction due to substantial errors, irregularities or fraud or serious breachof obligations

In case of a reduction (see Article 43), the Commission will calculatethe reduced grant amount for the beneficiary by deducting the amount ofthe reduction (calculated in proportion to the seriousness of the errors,irregularities or fraud or breach of obligations, in accordance with Article43.2) from the grant amount for the beneficiary.

If the payments received exceed the amounts due:

- if termination takes effect during the period set out in Article 3 and the request foramendment is accepted, the beneficiary concerned must repay to the coordinator theamount unduly received. The Commission will formally notify the amount undulyreceived and request the beneficiary concerned to repay it to the coordinator within30 days of receiving notification. If it does not repay the coordinator, the Commissionwill draw upon the Guarantee Fund to pay the coordinator and then notify a debitnote on behalf of the Guarantee Fund to the beneficiary concerned (see Article 44);

- in all other cases, in particular if termination takes effect after the period set outin Article 3, the Commission will formally notify a debit note to the beneficiaryconcerned. If payment is not made by the date in the debit note, the Guarantee Fundwill pay to the Commission the amount due and the Commission will notify a debitnote on behalf of the Guarantee Fund to the beneficiary concerned (see Article 44);

- if the beneficiary concerned is the former coordinator, it must repay the newcoordinator according to the procedure above, unless:

- termination takes effect after an interim payment and




78

- the former coordinator has not distributed amounts received as pre-financingor interim payments (see Article 21.7).

In this case, the Commission will formally notify a debit note to the formercoordinator. If payment is not made by the date in the debit note, the Guarantee Fundwill pay to the Commission the amount due. The Commission will then pay the newcoordinator and notify a debit note on behalf of the Guarantee Fund to the formercoordinator (see Article 44).

If the payments received do not exceed the amounts due: amounts owed to the beneficiaryconcerned will be included in the next interim or final payment.

If the Commission does not receive the termination report within the deadline (see above), onlycosts included in an approved periodic report will be taken into account.

If the Commission does not receive the report on the distribution of payments within thedeadline (see above), it will consider that:

- the coordinator did not distribute any payment to the beneficiary concerned and that

- the beneficiary concerned must not repay any amount to the coordinator.

After termination, the concerned beneficiary’s obligations (in particular Articles 20, 22, 23,Section 3 of Chapter 4, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43 and 44) continue to apply.

SECTION 4 FORCE MAJEURE

ARTICLE 51 — FORCE MAJEURE

‘Force majeure’ means any situation or event that:

- prevents either party from fulfilling their obligations under the Agreement,

- was unforeseeable, exceptional situation and beyond the parties’ control,

- was not due to error or negligence on their part (or on the part of third parties involved in theaction), and

- proves to be inevitable in spite of exercising all due diligence.

The following cannot be invoked as force majeure:

- any default of a service, defect in equipment or material or delays in making them available,unless they stem directly from a relevant case of force majeure,

- labour disputes or strikes, or

- financial difficulties.

Any situation constituting force majeure must be formally notified to the other party without delay,stating the nature, likely duration and foreseeable effects.




79

The parties must immediately take all the necessary steps to limit any damage due to force majeureand do their best to resume implementation of the action as soon as possible.

The party prevented by force majeure from fulfilling its obligations under the Agreement cannot beconsidered in breach of them.

CHAPTER 7 FINAL PROVISIONS

ARTICLE 52 — COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES

52.1 Form and means of communication

Communication under the Agreement (information, requests, submissions, ‘formal notifications’, etc.)must:

- be made in writing and

- bear the number of the Agreement.

Until the payment of the balance: all communication must be made through the electronic exchangesystem and using the forms and templates provided there.

After the payment of the balance: formal notifications must be made by registered post with proofof delivery (‘formal notification on paper’).

Communications in the electronic exchange system must be made by persons authorised according tothe Participant Portal Terms & Conditions. For naming the authorised persons, each beneficiary musthave designated — before the signature of this Agreement — a ‘legal entity appointed representative(LEAR)’. The role and tasks of the LEAR are stipulated in his/her appointment letter (see ParticipantPortal Terms & Conditions).

If the electronic exchange system is temporarily unavailable, instructions will be given on theCommission websites.

52.2 Date of communication

Communications are considered to have been made when they are sent by the sending party (i.e. onthe date and time they are sent through the electronic exchange system).

Formal notifications through the electronic exchange system are considered to have been made whenthey are received by the receiving party (i.e. on the date and time of acceptance by the receiving party,as indicated by the time stamp). A formal notification that has not been accepted within 10 days aftersending is considered to have been accepted.

Formal notifications on paper sent by registered post with proof of delivery (only after the paymentof the balance) are considered to have been made on either:

- the delivery date registered by the postal service or

- the deadline for collection at the post office.




80

If the electronic exchange system is temporarily unavailable, the sending party cannot be consideredin breach of its obligation to send a communication within a specified deadline.

52.3 Addresses for communication

The electronic exchange system must be accessed via the following URL:

https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/projects/

The Commission will formally notify the coordinator and beneficiaries in advance any changes tothis URL.

Formal notifications on paper (only after the payment of the balance) addressed to the Commissionmust be sent to the following address:

European CommissionDIRECTORATE-GENERAL RESEARCH & INNOVATIONResearch infrastructureORBN 04/116B-1049 Brussels Belgium

Formal notifications on paper (only after the payment of the balance) addressed to the beneficiariesmust be sent to their legal address as specified in the Participant Portal Beneficiary Register.

ARTICLE 53 — INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENT

53.1 Precedence of the Terms and Conditions over the Annexes

The provisions in the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement take precedence over its Annexes.

Annex 2 takes precedence over Annex 1.

53.2 Privileges and immunities

Nothing in the Agreement may be interpreted as a waiver of any privileges or immunities accordedto the EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH, by its constituent documentsor international law.

ARTICLE 54 — CALCULATION OF PERIODS, DATES AND DEADLINES

In accordance with Regulation No 1182/7128, periods expressed in days, months or years are calculatedfrom the moment the triggering event occurs.

The day during which that event occurs is not considered as falling within the period.

ARTICLE 55 — AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT

55.1 Conditions

28 Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods,dates and time-limits (OJ L 124, 8.6.1971, p. 1).


https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/projects/



81

The Agreement may be amended, unless the amendment entails changes to the Agreement whichwould call into question the decision awarding the grant or breach the principle of equal treatmentof applicants.

Amendments may be requested by any of the parties.

55.2 Procedure

The party requesting an amendment must submit a request for amendment signed in the electronicexchange system (see Article 52).

The coordinator submits and receives requests for amendment on behalf of the beneficiaries (seeAnnex 3).

If a change of coordinator is requested without its agreement, the submission must be done by anotherbeneficiary (acting on behalf of the other beneficiaries).

The request for amendment must include:

- the reasons why;

- the appropriate supporting documents;

- for a change of coordinator without its agreement: the opinion of the coordinator (or proof thatthis opinion has been requested in writing).

The Commission may request additional information.

If the party receiving the request agrees, it must sign the amendment in the electronic exchange systemwithin 45 days of receiving notification (or any additional information the Commission has requested).If it does not agree, it must formally notify its disagreement within the same deadline. The deadlinemay be extended, if necessary for the assessment of the request. If no notification is received withinthe deadline, the request is considered to have been rejected

An amendment enters into force on the day of the signature of the receiving party.

An amendment takes effect on the date agreed by the parties or, in the absence of such an agreement,on the date on which the amendment enters into force.

ARTICLE 56 — ACCESSION TO THE AGREEMENT

56.1 Accession of the beneficiaries mentioned in the Preamble

The other beneficiaries must accede to the Agreement by signing the Accession Form (see Annex 3) inthe electronic exchange system (see Article 52) within 30 days after its entry into force (see Article 58).

They will assume the rights and obligations under the Agreement with effect from the date of its entryinto force (see Article 58).

If a beneficiary does not accede to the Agreement within the above deadline, the coordinator must— within 30 days — request an amendment to make any changes necessary to ensure proper




82

implementation of the action. This does not affect the Commission’s right to terminate the Agreement(see Article 50).

56.2 Addition of new beneficiaries

In justified cases, the beneficiaries may request the addition of a new beneficiary.

For this purpose, the coordinator must submit a request for amendment in accordance with Article 55.It must include an Accession Form (see Annex 3) signed by the new beneficiary in the electronicexchange system (see Article 52).

New beneficiaries must assume the rights and obligations under the Agreement with effect from thedate of their accession specified in the Accession Form (see Annex 3).

ARTICLE 57 — APPLICABLE LAW AND SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

57.1 Applicable law

The Agreement is governed by the applicable EU law, supplemented if necessary by the law ofBelgium.

As an exception, the Agreement is governed by a different applicable law for the followingbeneficiaries:

- EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH: by the applicable EU law,supplemented if necessary by the law of France and, where appropriate, by the generalprinciples governing the law of international organisations and the rules of general internationallaw

57.2 Dispute settlement

If a dispute concerning the interpretation, application or validity of the Agreement cannot be settledamicably, the General Court — or, on appeal, the Court of Justice of the European Union — has solejurisdiction. Such actions must be brought under Article 272 of the Treaty on the Functioning of theEU (TFEU).

As an exception, if such a dispute is between the Commission and SHANGHAI INSTITUTE OFAPPLIED PHYSICS CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, ANKARA UNIVERSITESI, PAULSCHERRER INSTITUT, the competent Belgian courts have sole jurisdiction.

As an exception, for the following beneficiaries:

- EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH

- UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

- AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION

such disputes must — if they cannot be settled amicably — be referred to arbitration. The PermanentCourt of Arbitration Optional Rules for Arbitration Involving International Organisations and Statesin force at the date of entry into force of the Agreement will apply. The appointing authority will bethe Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration following a written request submitted




83

by either party. The arbitration proceedings must take place in Brussels and the language used in thearbitral proceedings will be English. The arbitral award will be binding on all parties and will not besubject to appeal.

If a dispute concerns administrative sanctions, offsetting or an enforceable decision under Article 299TFEU (see Articles 44, 45 and 46), the beneficiaries must bring action before the General Court —or, on appeal, the Court of Justice of the European Union — under Article 263 TFEU.

ARTICLE 58 — ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AGREEMENT

The Agreement will enter into force on the day of signature by the Commission or the coordinator,depending on which is later.

SIGNATURES

For the coordinator For the Commission

[--TGSMark#signature-999589851_75_210--] [--TGSMark#signature-service_75_210--]


EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERAL RESEARCH & INNOVATION

Research infrastructure

ANNEX 1 (part A)

Research and Innovation action

NUMBER — 777431 — XLS


Table of Contents

1.1. The project summary................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2. The list of beneficiaries..............................................................................................................................4

1.3. Workplan Tables - Detailed implementation..............................................................................................6

1.3.1. WT1 List of work packages........................................................................................................... 6

1.3.2. WT2 List of deliverables................................................................................................................ 7

1.3.3. WT3 Work package descriptions...................................................................................................9

Work package 1........................................................................................................................... 9

Work package 2......................................................................................................................... 12

Work package 3......................................................................................................................... 15

Work package 4......................................................................................................................... 18

Work package 5......................................................................................................................... 20

Work package 6......................................................................................................................... 22

Work package 7......................................................................................................................... 24

1.3.4. WT4 List of milestones................................................................................................................ 27

1.3.5. WT5 Critical Implementation risks and mitigation actions........................................................... 29

1.3.6 WT6 Summary of project effort in person-months........................................................................31

1.3.7. WT7 Tentative schedule of project reviews.................................................................................33


1.1. The project summary

Page 3 of 33

Project Number 1 777431 Project Acronym 2 XLS

One form per project

General information

Project title 3 CompactLight

Starting date 4 01/01/2018

Duration in months 5 36

Call (part) identifier 6 H2020-INFRADEV-2017-1

Topic INFRADEV-01-2017Design Studies

Fixed EC Keywords Knowledge infrastructure

Free keywords Free Electron Laser, Particle Accelerator, Linear Accelerator

Abstract 7

During the past decades Synchrotron Radiation facilities have seen an impetuous growth as a fundamental tool forthe study of materials in a wide spectrum of sciences, technologies, and applications. The latest generation of lightsources, the Free Electron Lasers, capable of delivering high-intensity photon beams of unprecedented brilliance andquality, provide a substantially novel way to probe matter and have very high, largely unexplored, potential for scienceand innovation. Currently, the FELs operating in EU are three, FERMI, FLASH and FLASH II, operating in the softX-ray range and two are under commissioning, SwissFEL and EuroXFEL, which will operate in the hard X-ray scale.While most of the worldwide existing FELs use conventional normal conducting 3 GHz S-band linacs, others usenewer designs based on 6 GHz C-band technology, increasing the accelerating gradient with an overall reduction ofthe linac length and cost.With CompactLight we intend to design a hard X-ray FEL facility beyond today’s state of the art, using the latestconcepts for bright electron photo injectors, very high-gradient X-band structures at 12 GHz, and innovative compactshort-period undulators. If compared to existing facilities, the proposed facility will benefit from a lower electronbeam energy, due to the enhanced undulator performance, be significantly more compact, as a consequence both of thelower energy and of the high-gradient X-band structures, have a much lower electrical power demand and a smallerfootprint.CompactLight gathers the world-leading experts in these domains, united to achieve two objectives: disseminate X-band technology as a new standard for accelerator-based facilities and advance undulators to the next generation ofcompact photon sources, with the aim of facilitating the widespread development of X-ray FEL facilities across andbeyond Europe by making them more affordable to build and to operate.


1.2. List of Beneficiaries

Page 4 of 33

Project Number 1 777431 Project Acronym 2 XLS

List of Beneficiaries

No Name Short name CountryProjectentrymonth8

Projectexitmonth

1 ELETTRA - SINCROTRONE TRIESTESCPA ST Italy 1 36

2 EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FORNUCLEAR RESEARCH CERN Switzerland 1 36

3 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYFACILITIES COUNCIL STFC United Kingdom 1 36

4SHANGHAI INSTITUTE OF APPLIEDPHYSICS CHINESE ACADEMY OFSCIENCE

SINAPChina (People'sRepublic of) 1 36

5 INSTITUTE OF ACCELERATINGSYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS IASA Greece 1 36

6 UPPSALA UNIVERSITET UU Sweden 1 36

7 UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE UoM Australia 1 36

8 AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE ANDTECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION ANSTO-AS Australia 1 36

9 ANKARA UNIVERSITESI UA-IAT Turkey 1 36

10 LANCASTER UNIVERSITY ULANC United Kingdom 1 36

11 VDL ENABLING TECHNOLOGIESGROUP EINDHOVEN BV VDL ETG Netherlands 1 36

12 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEITEINDHOVEN TU/e Netherlands 1 36

13 ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI FISICANUCLEARE INFN Italy 1 36

14 KYMA SRL Kyma Italy 1 36

15 UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LASAPIENZA SAPIENZA Italy 1 36

16AGENZIA NAZIONALE PER LE NUOVETECNOLOGIE, L'ENERGIA E LOSVILUPPO ECONOMICO SOSTENIBILE

ENEA Italy 1 36

17CONSORCIO PARA LA CONSTRUCCIONEQUIPAMIENTO Y EXPLOTACION DELLABORATORIO DE LUZ SINCROTRON

ALBA-CELLS Spain 1 36

18 CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHESCIENTIFIQUE CNRS CNRS France 1 36

19 KARLSRUHER INSTITUT FUERTECHNOLOGIE KIT Germany 1 36

20 PAUL SCHERRER INSTITUT PSI Switzerland 1 36


1.2. List of Beneficiaries

Page 5 of 33

No Name Short name CountryProjectentrymonth8

Projectexitmonth

21AGENCIA ESTATAL CONSEJOSUPERIOR DEINVESTIGACIONESCIENTIFICAS

CSIC Spain 1 36

22 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO UH/HIP Finland 1 36

23 STICHTING VU VU Netherlands 1 36

24 UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE USTR United Kingdom 1 36


1.3. Workplan Tables - Detailed implementation

Page 6 of 33

1.3.1. WT1 List of work packages

WPNumber9 WP Title Lead beneficiary10 Person-

months11Startmonth12

Endmonth13

WP1 Project management and TechnicalCoordination 1 - ST 32.00 1 36

WP2 FEL Science Requirements andFacility Design 3 - STFC 68.00 2 36

WP3 Gun and injector 13 - INFN 76.00 2 36

WP4 RF system 2 - CERN 78.00 2 36

WP5 Undulators and light production 16 - ENEA 81.00 2 36

WP6 Beam dynamics and start to endmodelling 9 - UA-IAT 78.00 2 36

WP7 Global integration with newResearch Infrastructures 1 - ST 27.00 6 36

Total 440.00


of 33

1.3.2. WT2 list of deliverables

DeliverableNumber14 Deliverable Title

WPnumber9 Lead beneficiary Type15 Dissemination

level16

DueDate (inmonths)17

D1.1 CompactLight publicWebsite WP1 1 - ST

Websites,patentsfilling, etc.

Public 3

D1.2 Data Management Plan WP1 1 - ST

ORDP:OpenResearchData Pilot

Public 6

D1.3

Short monographsummarizing theConceptual DesignReport

WP1 1 - ST Report Public 36

D2.1 Users requirements andFEL performance WP2 3 - STFC Report Public 12

D2.2FEL design withaccelerator andundulator requirements

WP2 3 - STFC Report Public 24

D2.3Hard X-ray FELConceptual DesignReport

WP2 3 - STFC Report Public 36

D3.1 Optimum e-gun andinjector solution WP3 13 - INFN Report Public 18

D3.2Bunch compressionand phase spacelinearization

WP3 13 - INFN Report Public 18

D3.3 Injector diagnostics andbeam manipulations WP3 13 - INFN Report Public 36

D3.4 E-gun and injectorDesign WP3 13 - INFN Report Public 36

D4.1 RF unit design WP4 2 - CERN Report Public 18

D4.2 RF power unit WP4 2 - CERN Report Public 36

D4.3 RF unit design andfabrication procedure WP4 2 - CERN Report Public 36

D5.1Technologies forthe CompactLightundulator

WP5 16 - ENEA Report Public 18

D5.2 Conceptual DesignReport of the undulator WP5 16 - ENEA Report Public 36

D6.1 Computer codes for thefacility design WP6 9 - UA-IAT Report Public 18

D6.2 Start to end facilitysimulations WP6 9 - UA-IAT Report Public 36


of 33

DeliverableNumber14 Deliverable Title

WPnumber9 Lead beneficiary Type15 Dissemination

level16


D7.1CompactLight globalintegration and costanalysis


D7.2CompactLight globalintegration analysis,services and cost



of 33

1.3.3. WT3 Work package descriptions

Work package number 9 WP1 Lead beneficiary 10 1 - ST

Work package title Project management and Technical Coordination

Start month 1 End month 36

Objectives

• General governance of CompactLight Design Study and Scientific Management.• Coordination among the participants, communication, meeting organization, project monitoring and reporting.• Administrative and financial coordination, handling and distribution of funds.• Dissemination of information.

Description of work and role of partners

WP1 - Project management and Technical Coordination [Months: 1-36]ST, CERN, STFC, IASA, UoM, ANSTO-AS, UA-IAT, INFN, ENEA, ALBA-CELLSWP1 is the overall management of the CompactLight Design Study and will ensure timely achievement of project resultsthrough technical and administrative management. It will be led by the Project Coordinator and will be focused on theeffective management and coordination of all the WPs and deliverables, the budget and the project implementation plans.

Task 1.1 - General governance of CompactLight Design Study and scientific management.The activities of this task are for the Project Coordinator (Elettra-Sincrotrone Trieste) that oversees and coordinates thewhole project, enforces rules and supports the implementation of all the work-packages and tasks approved by EuropeanCommission. The overall management of the project shall ensure a timely achievement of the results. Supervision andcontact with the EC will be maintained during the whole Design Study. ST will take the leading role in this task in closecol¬laboration with WP leaders, CERN, STFC, UA-IAT, INFN, ENEA and IASA, UoM, ANSTO, ALBA.

Task 1.2 - Coordination among the participants, communication, meeting organization, project monitoring and reporting.The activities of this task will include the implementation and maintenance of the management structures and proceduresfor decision making. Among them installing the Collaboration Board (CB), the Project Coordination Office (PCO), andall the official bodies foreseen for the governance of the project, included the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC). Thecoordination duties also in¬clude the organization of internal meetings, project reviewing, check of the timely reportingby all partners and the distribution of the information within the WPs and to the whole project. ST will take the leadingrole in this task in close collaboration with WP leaders, CERN, STFC, UA-IAT, INFN, ENEA.

Task 1.3 - Administrative and financial coordination, handling and distribution of funds.The Project Coordinator will provide administrative and financial management, including advice and support to partners,management of financial records, coordination of annual cost claims and fund distribution. Based on the EC rules,the funds for the work packages and tasks, approved by the EC, will be handled, managed and distributed among theparticipants. Auditing and timely re¬porting will be assured by the coordinator institution, Elettra-Sincrotrone Trieste.ST will take the leading role in this task.

Task 1.4 - Dissemination of information.This task will concentrate the effort of communication and spreading information in an effective way.Meetings and thematic workshops will be promoted and organized to disseminate informa¬tion and attract the interestof scientific laboratory and industry. Participation and presentation of technical and scientific results at InternationalConferences will be fostered. Information and results achieved during the project implementation will be collected andmade available on the project public website. A Data Management Plan guiding the project activities related to the OpenResearch Data Pilot will be developed, implemented, and regularly updated. ST will take the leading role in this taskin close collaboration with all the partners.

Participation per Partner

Partner number and short name WP1 effort

1 - ST 15.00


of 33


2 - CERN 2.00

3 - STFC 2.00

5 - IASA 2.00

7 - UoM 2.00

8 - ANSTO-AS 2.00

9 - UA-IAT 2.00

13 - INFN 2.00

16 - ENEA 2.00

17 - ALBA-CELLS 1.00

Total 32.00

List of deliverables

DeliverableNumber14 Deliverable Title Lead beneficiary Type15 Dissemination level16


D1.1 CompactLight publicWebsite 1 - ST

Websites,patentsfilling, etc.

Public 3

D1.2 Data Management Plan 1 - STORDP: OpenResearchData Pilot

Public 6

D1.3

Short monographsummarizing theConceptual DesignReport

1 - ST Report Public 36

Description of deliverables

D1.1 - Creation of CompactLight public Website containing all the information relating to the project, includingobjectives and achievements. (DEC, PU, M3).D1.2 - Preparation of a Data Management Plan defining the instruments and strategies for Open Data Management ofthe project results (ORDP, PU, M6).D1.3 - Production of a short monograph summarizing the Conceptual Design Report. (R, PU, M36).

D1.1 : CompactLight public Website [3]Creation of the CompactLight public Website containing all the information relating to the project, includingobjectives and achievements.

D1.2 : Data Management Plan [6]Outline and implement a Data Management Plan (DMP) in order to optimise and maximise the accessibility and theimpact of the XLS results. The Data Management Plan (DMP) will select appropriate repositories and an effectivestrategies to make the results of XLS accessible with as few restrictions as possible, adhering to the Open ResearchData Pilot (https://www.openaire.eu/opendatapilot). The DMP will be regularly updated in accordance with theGuidelines on FAIR Data Management in Horizon 2020.

D1.3 : Short monograph summarizing the Conceptual Design Report [36]Production of a short monograph summarizing the Conceptual Design Report.


of 33

Schedule of relevant Milestones

Milestonenumber18 Milestone title Lead beneficiary

DueDate (inmonths)

Means of verification

MS1 Kick-off Meeting 1 - ST 1 CompactLight kick-offMeeting

MS2 Official bodies forgovernance 1 - ST 1

Formation of all officialbodies required forgovernance.

MS3 Governance bodies 1 - ST 2 Installation of governancebodies.

MS11 1st Mid-term Project Review 1 - ST 6 1st Mid-term Project Review

MS12 1st Annual Meeting andProject Review Joint Session. 1 - ST 12 1st Annual Meeting and

Project Review Joint Session.

MS14 2nd Mid-term Project Review. 1 - ST 18 2nd Mid-term Project Review.

MS15 2nd Annual Meeting andProject Review Joint Session. 1 - ST 24 2nd Annual Meeting and


MS17 3rd Mid-term Project Review 1 - ST 30 3rd Mid-term Project Review

MS18 Final Annual Meeting andProject Review Joint Session. 1 - ST 35 Final Annual Meeting and



of 33

Work package number 9 WP2 Lead beneficiary 10 3 - STFC

Work package title FEL Science Requirements and Facility Design


Objectives

The objective of WP2 is to provide the overall design of the hard X-ray FEL facility.


WP2 - FEL Science Requirements and Facility Design [Months: 2-36]STFC, ST, CERN, SINAP, UU, UoM, UA-IAT, INFN, ALBA-CELLS, CNRSStarting from the performance specification of the FEL, based on user-driven scientific requirements, the aim of WP2is to identify and chose the most appropriate technical solutions for the FEL considering cost, technical risk andperformance. This WP will require, at all stages of the design, a close interaction between FEL scientists, FEL designers,undulator specialists, accelerator and RF experts. For this purpose, regular meetings, will be organized to present, discussand coordinate design work. WP2 will also take care of industry relations and involvement.

The work will be divided in three tasks led by STFC with the support of ST, CERN, SINAP, UU, UoM, UA-IAT, INFN,ALBA and CNRS.

Task 2.1 - FEL user scientists and potential users will provide specification for the Hard X-ray FEL output parameters(in terms of wavelength range, pulse energy, polarisation, beam structure, pulse duration, synchronisation to externallaser, etc.).

Task 2.2 - The outcome of the previous task will be used by FEL experts (working closely with WP3, 4, & 5) to definethe FEL system, with the accelerator and undulator requirements that are needed to achieve the specification (electronenergy, bunch charge, peak current, emittance, energy spread, period, field strength, etc.).Then the task will identify andchose the most appropriate technical solutions considering cost, technical risk and performance.

Task 2.3 – Engineers, accelerator physicists, undulator and RF experts will receive machine specification from FELexperts and will then design a user facility capable of achieving these requirements. Regular contact and iterationsbetween the FEL experts, engineers, accelerator and undulator designers will be essential to achieve an optimised design.The Hard X-ray FEL conceptual design report will also include options for Soft X-ray FEL and Compton Source.



1 - ST 3.00

2 - CERN 8.00

3 - STFC 18.00

4 - SINAP 4.00

6 - UU 4.00

7 - UoM 10.00

9 - UA-IAT 6.00

13 - INFN 6.00


18 - CNRS 3.00

Total 68.00


of 33




D2.1 Users requirements andFEL performance 3 - STFC Report Public 12

D2.2FEL design withaccelerator and undulatorrequirements

3 - STFC Report Public 24

D2.3Hard X-ray FELConceptual DesignReport

3 - STFC Report Public 36


D2-1 - A report summarising the requests from the users and defining the performance specifications for the FEL, (R,PU, M12).D2.2 - A report summarising the FEL design, with the accelerator and undulator requirements to achieve thespecification, i.e. electron energy, bunch charge, peak current, emittance, energy spread, undulator parameters, etc.,(R, PU, M24).D2.3 - The conceptual design report for a Hard X-ray FEL facility, including cost estimates, with options for Soft X-ray FEL and Compton Source, (R, PU, M36).

D2.1 : Users requirements and FEL performance [12]Report providing users requirements and FEL performance specification.

D2.2 : FEL design with accelerator and undulator requirements [24]Report providing a global analysis of the most advanced computer codes available for the facility design andperformance evaluations

D2.3 : Hard X-ray FEL Conceptual Design Report [36]The conceptual design report for a Hard X-ray FEL facility, including cost estimates, with options for Soft X-ray FELand Compton Source.



DueDate (inmonths)


MS4 First meeting of WP2 3 - STFC 2 First meeting of WP2

MS10 1st WP2-WP6 Joint Meeting 3 - STFC 6 1st WP2-WP6 Joint Meeting– Hardware assessments.




MS13 2nd WP2-WP6 Joint Meeting 2 - CERN 18 2nd WP2-WP6 Joint Meeting– Hardware specification.





of 33



DueDate (inmonths)


MS16 3rd WP2-WP6 Joint Meeting 3 - STFC 30 3rd WP2-WP6 Joint Meeting– Hardware Design.





of 33

Work package number 9 WP3 Lead beneficiary 10 13 - INFN

Work package title Gun and injector


Objectives

The objective of WP3 is to provide the technical specification and the optimum design of the Linac e-gun and injector.


WP3 - Gun and injector [Months: 2-36]INFN, ST, CERN, IASA, UA-IAT, ULANC, TU/e, SAPIENZA, ALBA-CELLS, CNRS, USTRFor the qualification and assessment of the most advanced gun and injector designs for CompactLight, WP3 will considervarious options:

• A full X-band solution, inclusive of higher-harmonic linearization in K band. This aims to utilize the recentachievements in the design of X-band guns and reduce limitations of machine re¬pletion rate currently given by theinjector.• High-gradient S and C bands injectors (towards ultra-high brightness guns).

Phase-space linearizers, compact magnetic chicanes, to achieve longitudinal bunch compression, will also be comparedfor the different variants and detailed designs produced for the final design choice. WP3 will also include the design ofan X-band deflecting cavity. The work will be divided in four tasks:

Task 3.1 - Evaluation of an innovative full-X-band injector, inclusive of a higher-harmonic lineariza¬tion in the K band.This ambitious goal aims to advance the recent achievements in the design of X-band guns and to explore the feasibilityof RF components at unprecedented frequencies such as the K band. INFN will lead this task with the support of ST,CERN, UA-IAT, ULANC, TU/e, USTR.

Task 3.2 - Evaluation of a high-gradient C-band injector and S-band injector inclusive of X-band linearizer and amagnetic chicane. INFN will lead this task.

Task 3.3 - Design of CompactLight e-gun and injector inclusive of linearizer and a magnetic chicane. INFN will leadthis task with the support of all the partners working on this WP.

Task 3.4 - Phase-space linearisers, and options for compact magnetic chicanes to achieve longitu¬dinal bunchcompression). Diagnostics tool based on X-band deflecting transverse cavity will also be considered. INFN will leadthis task with the support of ST, CERN, UA-IAT, ULANC, SAPIENZA, ALBA.



1 - ST 3.00

2 - CERN 2.00

5 - IASA 6.00

9 - UA-IAT 2.00

10 - ULANC 10.00

12 - TU/e 12.00

13 - INFN 12.00

15 - SAPIENZA 12.00


18 - CNRS 9.00


of 33


24 - USTR 6.00

Total 76.00




D3.1 Optimum e-gun andinjector solution 13 - INFN Report Public 18

D3.2 Bunch compression andphase space linearization 13 - INFN Report Public 18

D3.3 Injector diagnostics andbeam manipulations 13 - INFN Report Public 36

D3.4 E-gun and injectorDesign 13 - INFN Report Public 36


D3.1 - Preliminary assessments and evaluations of the optimum e-gun and injector solution for the CompactLightdesign, (R, PU, M18).D3.2 – A review report on the bunch compression techniques and phase space linearization, (R, PU, M18).D3.3 – Design of the injector diagnostics/beam manipulations based on a X-band cavities, (R, PU, M36).D3.4 - Design of the CompactLight e-gun and injector, with phase space linearizer (R, PU, M36).

D3.1 : Optimum e-gun and injector solution [18]Evaluation report of the optimum e-gun and injector solution for the CompactLight CDR.

D3.2 : Bunch compression and phase space linearization [18]Review report on the bunch compression techniques and phase space linearization.

D3.3 : Injector diagnostics and beam manipulations [36]Design report of the injector diagnostics and beam manipulations based on a X-band cavities.

D3.4 : E-gun and injector Design [36]E-gun and injector Design Report with diagnostics and phase space linearizer.



DueDate (inmonths)


MS5 First meeting of WP3 13 - INFN 2 First meeting of WP3.






of 33



DueDate (inmonths)











of 33

Work package number 9 WP4 Lead beneficiary 10 2 - CERN

Work package title RF system


Objectives

Define the RF system for the linac of the CompactLight design in the main and sub-design variants.


WP4 - RF system [Months: 2-36]CERN, ST, SINAP, UU, UoM, ANSTO-AS, UA-IAT, VDL ETG, INFN, CNRS, CSIC, UH/HIPWP4 will define the RF system for the main linac of the FEL facility in the main and sub-design variants. A key goalwill be to define a standardized RF unit which can be used in all main and sub-design variants. Making a standardizeddesign available can simplify the preparation of future con¬struction projects, stimulate the industrialization processand cost savings by future facilities.

WP4 is led by CERN and will be divided in three tasks:Task 4.1 - Development of the design and costing tools needed to provide input for the global op¬timization done inWP2. This will be done in collaboration with the experts from existing facilities as well as the ongoing effort to optimizethe CLIC klystron-based initial 380 GeV energy stage. CERN will lead this task.

Task 4.2 – Hardware development and prototype testing. This includes active contact and coordi¬nation with ongoingprojects including CLIC, the CLEAR facility and X-band systems under devel¬opment for deflectors in existing XFELfacilities to incorporate the latest developments there. CERN will take the leading role for this task. The work will besupported by all WP4 partners.

Task 4.3 - Industrialized and cost reduction. Industrialization will cover the high-power RF system, klystrons,modulators, pulse compressor and waveguide network, as well as the tight-tolerance, high-gradient acceleratingstructures. The task will be led by CERN and carried out with the support of VDL ETG.



1 - ST 2.00

2 - CERN 10.00

4 - SINAP 8.00

6 - UU 4.00

7 - UoM 10.00

8 - ANSTO-AS 3.00

9 - UA-IAT 6.00

11 - VDL ETG 10.00

13 - INFN 5.00

18 - CNRS 3.00

21 - CSIC 12.00

22 - UH/HIP 5.00

Total 78.00


of 33




D4.1 RF unit design 2 - CERN Report Public 18

D4.2 RF power unit 2 - CERN Report Public 36

D4.3 RF unit design andfabrication procedure 2 - CERN Report Public 36


D4.1 - A parameterized performance and cost model of the RF unit to be used by WP2 for the facility optimization.The model will be established in computer code and described in a report, (R, PU, M18).D4.2 - A design report of the optimized RF unit. Based on the parameters emerging from the facility optimization, thedesign of the RF unit will be established at the component level and described in a report, (R, PU, M36).D4.3 - A report on the design and fabrication procedure, optimized for series industrial production, of the acceleratingstructure which is an important cost driver for the facility, (R, PU, M36).

D4.1 : RF unit design [18]Computer code report for RF power unit design and cost optimization.

D4.2 : RF power unit [36]Design report of the optimized RF unit.

D4.3 : RF unit design and fabrication procedure [36]Report on RF unit design and fabrication procedure.



DueDate (inmonths)


MS6 First meeting of WP4 2 - CERN 2 First meeting of WP4.














of 33

Work package number 9 WP5 Lead beneficiary 10 16 - ENEA

Work package title Undulators and light production


Objectives

The objective of WP5 is to provide the design of the CompactLight undulator


WP5 - Undulators and light production [Months: 2-36]ENEA, ST, STFC, ANSTO-AS, UA-IAT, Kyma, ALBA-CELLS, KIT, PSIWP5 will explore the future developments of undulators for Light Sources. Comparative studies will be performedof ambitious and innovative undulators that are based on technologies that will available on the time scale of 4-5years. Systematic and comparative assessment will be done taking into account the integrated facility performance.In close collaboration with WP6, it will be based on studies of the transport line, matching the undulators sectionto the characteristics of the accelerated beam. The results of WP5 will provide important input to WP2, supportingand exploring the possibilities for very compact photon sources. Particular attention will be given to superconductingundulators enabling field amplitude adjustment along the undulator (equivalent to the tapering of permanent magnetundulators), enhanced-bandwidth FEL radiation or super-radiant light sources at short wavelengths. Such schemes,which have not been investigated so far, could significantly increase the capabilities of future compact light sources.

The work will be divided into four tasks. ENEA will lead these tasks, with the support of all the partners working onthis WP.

Task 5.1 - Review the technology trends for undulators R&D worldwide, and compare the potential for innovationand performance. In particular: superconducting undulators enabling field amplitude adjustment along the undulator(equivalent to the tapering of permanent magnet undulators), enhanced-bandwidth FEL radiation or super-radiant lightsources at short wavelengths.

Task 5.2 - Select a few outstanding options to be considered for CompactLight.Task 5.3 - For the options selected in T5.2, perform a systematic optimization of the electron beam parameters at thelinac-to-undulator interface to maximise the photon production, in close contact with WP2 and WP6.

Task 5.4 - Report the conceptual design of the selected options as resulting from T5.3.



1 - ST 2.00

3 - STFC 6.00

8 - ANSTO-AS 5.00

9 - UA-IAT 3.00

14 - Kyma 10.00

16 - ENEA 21.00


19 - KIT 18.00

20 - PSI 12.00

Total 81.00


of 33




D5.1 Technologies for theCompactLight undulator 16 - ENEA Report Public 18

D5.2 Conceptual DesignReport of the undulator 16 - ENEA Report Public 36


D5.1: A report comparing the different technologies for the undulator, as an input for WP2, (R, PU, M18).D5.2: Design Report of the undulator to be included in the main deliverable of CompactLight, (R, PU, M36).

D5.1 : Technologies for the CompactLight undulator [18]Review report comparing the different technologies for the CompactLight undulator.

D5.2 : Conceptual Design Report of the undulator [36]Design Report of the undulator to be included in the main deliverable of CompactLight



DueDate (inmonths)


MS7 First meeting of WP5 16 - ENEA 2 First meeting of WP5.














of 33

Work package number 9 WP6 Lead beneficiary 10 9 - UA-IAT

Work package title Beam dynamics and start to end modelling


Objectives

Design the accelerator lattice and provide the key parameters and performance estimates of the overall facility, fromthe electron source up to undulator exit.


WP6 - Beam dynamics and start to end modelling [Months: 2-36]UA-IAT, ST, CERN, STFC, IASA, UU, UoM, ANSTO-AS, INFN, ENEA, ALBA-CELLS, VUWP6 will carry out integrated performance studies of the facility. To achieve its objective WP6 will carry out integratedperformance studies of the facility. These include start to end simulations, covering the beam transport from the cathodeto the undulator exit, including space charge effects, coherent synchrotron radiation in magnetic compressors, wakefield effects in the X-band linac and FEL performances. This will serve as input to WP2 to elaborate the overallfacility design. It will also be the basis for technology choices for critical components, and for developing detaileddesigns of subsystems and components including: accelerating structures, undulators, power sources, modulators, pulsecompressors, waveguide network, instrumentation and alignment system. WP6 is closely linked to WP2, WP3, WP4and WP5.

The work will be divided in two tasks led by UA-IAT with the support of all the partners working on WP6.

Task 6.1 – Study of the existing design and simulation tools for the evaluation of the facility performance. Analyse andimprove their capabilities if necessary.

Task 6.2 – Using the above mentioned tools, design and evaluate the lattice performance from the e-gun up to theundulator exit, including space-charge effects, Coherent Synchrotron Radiation in magnetic compressors, wake fieldeffects and FEL performance. Simulations will include the study of key tolerances and mitigation strategies to dealwith imperfections.



1 - ST 4.00

2 - CERN 4.00

3 - STFC 5.00

5 - IASA 2.00

6 - UU 6.00

7 - UoM 12.00

8 - ANSTO-AS 5.00

9 - UA-IAT 12.00

13 - INFN 6.00

16 - ENEA 6.00


23 - VU 12.00

Total 78.00


of 33




D6.1 Computer codes for thefacility design 9 - UA-IAT Report Public 18

D6.2 Start to end facilitysimulations 9 - UA-IAT Report Public 36


D6.1: A report providing a global analysis of the most advanced computer codes available for the facility design andperformance evaluations (R, PU, M18).D6.2: Final report of the accelerator lattice and FEL design and performance (R, PU, M36).

D6.1 : Computer codes for the facility design [18]Review report on the most advanced computer codes for the facility design

D6.2 : Start to end facility simulations [36]Final report of the accelerator lattice, FEL design and performance



DueDate (inmonths)


MS8 First meeting of WP6 9 - UA-IAT 2 First meeting of WP6.














of 33

Work package number 9 WP7 Lead beneficiary 10 1 - ST

Work package title Global integration with new Research Infrastructures


Objectives

CompactLight global integration for new Research Infrastructures at European level and Worldwide.Research services to be provided at international level.


WP7 - Global integration with new Research Infrastructures [Months: 6-36]ST, CERN, STFC, IASA, UoM, UA-IAT, VDL ETG, INFN, Kyma, ENEA, ALBA-CELLS, VUWP7 will address strategic issues related to the objectives of CompactLight, namely the impact and benefits for the usercommunity, in both the public and private sectors, at the scientific and technical level. The results of this work packagewill be a series of reports which target funding agencies and policy makers and that can be used in the decision makingprocess for the approval of new research infrastructures or the upgrade of existing facilities.

The work will be divided into three tasks. ST will take the lead role for all the tasks with the sup¬port of all the partnersworking on the WP7.

Task 7.1 - Global integration of CompactLight for new Research Infrastructures at European level and Worldwide.Activities for this task will focus on gathering the user demands on FELs and accelerator up¬grades in the near andmid-term future, emphasising the needs from European laboratories and global partners. Photon characteristics andassociated electron beam parameters will be examined in conjunction to the proposed funding and the available existinginfrastructure or real-estate. The optimum combination of emerging and innovative accelerator technologies, moreefficient and with compact dimensions will permit the realisation of infrastructures that cost significantly less thanpresent day estimates. This will assist funding agencies to decide on the construction of new, or to upgrade existinginfrastructures, to increase the broad complementary production of high quality photon beams throughout the Europeanand global territories. Therefore, this work will examine how CompactLight can be used to satisfy the scientific needsand to also provide feasible upgrade paths for future integrations and developments. The study will also show howCompactLight can be integrated with existing infrastructures to enhance their productivity and prolong their operationallifetime. The opportunities that arise from the diffusion of this technol¬ogy into European and global industry will bestudied and reported.Task 7.2 - Services to be provided.This study will focus on the complementary and operational aspects of having the CompactLight emerging andinnovative accelerator technologies for FELs facilities in the European arena. The advantages already described canpermit the realization of new high quality photon sources or particle beams in research institutes and universitiesthat have so far been excluded for reasons of available resources, thus integrating these research institutes with thenational large scale re¬search infrastructures. This would allow greater access to scientists to unique photon sourcesand address the huge over-subscription of current FEL or synchrotron radiation facilities, whilst max¬imizing thecomplementary nature of those fields, characteristic of University research. Studies will furthermore be made on theoperational exploitation of the very high gradients, such as the impact on photon tunability, duty cycle and time structure.

Task 7.3 - Preliminary estimation of construction/operation costs.This activity will be also focused on the cost of realisation of new facilities. The study will examine the cost ofdevelopment of the accelerator components and their fabrication. A study will be made of the expected budgets requiredfor new accelerator construction and on the costs of up¬grading existing infrastructures as well as the operational costs.When studying the costs of up¬grades a comparison will be made with regard to the use of existing technology withrespect to the CompactLight approach especially when the use of existing buildings and services is mandatory.



1 - ST 11.00


of 33


2 - CERN 2.00

3 - STFC 1.00

5 - IASA 1.00

7 - UoM 2.00

9 - UA-IAT 1.00

11 - VDL ETG 2.00

13 - INFN 1.00

14 - Kyma 2.00

16 - ENEA 1.00


23 - VU 2.00

Total 27.00




D7.1CompactLight globalintegration and costanalysis


D7.2CompactLight globalintegration analysis,services and cost



D7.1 - Mid-term report providing a global integration analysis and services to be provided, (R, PU, M24).D7.2 - Final report giving an overview of the integration process, services and a preliminary cost estimate, (R, PU,M36).

D7.1 : CompactLight global integration and cost analysis [24]Mid-term report with CompactLight global integration and cost analysis.

D7.2 : CompactLight global integration analysis, services and cost [36]Final report giving an overview of the Facility integration process, services and a preliminary cost estimate.



DueDate (inmonths)


MS9 First meeting of WP7 1 - ST 6 First meeting of WP7



of 33



DueDate (inmonths)











of 33

1.3.4. WT4 List of milestones

Milestonenumber18 Milestone title

WPnumber9 Lead beneficiary



MS1 Kick-off Meeting WP1 1 - ST 1 CompactLight kick-offMeeting

MS2 Official bodies forgovernance WP1 1 - ST 1

Formation of all officialbodies required forgovernance.

MS3 Governance bodies WP1 1 - ST 2 Installation of governancebodies.

MS4 First meeting of WP2 WP2 3 - STFC 2 First meeting of WP2

MS5 First meeting of WP3 WP3 13 - INFN 2 First meeting of WP3.

MS6 First meeting of WP4 WP4 2 - CERN 2 First meeting of WP4.

MS7 First meeting of WP5 WP5 16 - ENEA 2 First meeting of WP5.

MS8 First meeting of WP6 WP6 9 - UA-IAT 2 First meeting of WP6.

MS9 First meeting of WP7 WP7 1 - ST 6 First meeting of WP7

MS10 1st WP2-WP6 JointMeeting

WP2,WP3,WP4,WP5,WP6

3 - STFC 6 1st WP2-WP6 Joint Meeting– Hardware assessments.

MS11 1st Mid-term ProjectReview

WP1,WP2,WP3,WP4,WP5,WP6,WP7

1 - ST 6 1st Mid-term Project Review

MS121st Annual Meetingand Project ReviewJoint Session.


1 - ST 12 1st Annual Meeting andProject Review Joint Session.

MS13 2nd WP2-WP6 JointMeeting

WP2,WP3,WP4,WP5,WP6

2 - CERN 18 2nd WP2-WP6 Joint Meeting– Hardware specification.

MS14 2nd Mid-term ProjectReview.


1 - ST 18 2nd Mid-term Project Review.


of 33

Milestonenumber18 Milestone title

WPnumber9 Lead beneficiary



MS152nd Annual Meetingand Project ReviewJoint Session.


1 - ST 24 2nd Annual Meeting andProject Review Joint Session.

MS16 3rd WP2-WP6 JointMeeting

WP2,WP3,WP4,WP5,WP6

3 - STFC 30 3rd WP2-WP6 Joint Meeting– Hardware Design.

MS17 3rd Mid-term ProjectReview


1 - ST 30 3rd Mid-term Project Review

MS18Final Annual Meetingand Project ReviewJoint Session.


1 - ST 35 Final Annual Meeting andProject Review Joint Session.


of 33

1.3.5. WT5 Critical Implementation risks and mitigation actions

Risknumber Description of risk WP Number Proposed risk-mitigation measures

1

• Management review/decisions are slower thanexpected. • Insufficientcommunication and datatransfer between partners.• Progress reporting takesmore time than expected. •Ineffective and/or inadequatedissemination plan. • Changeof management teampersonnel during the project.

WP1

• Intensify and improve management teamdiscussions. • Stimulate regular contacts anditerations between FEL users, FEL expertsand accelerator designers. • Intensify technicalreviews, promote discus¬sions and monitormotivation. • Check the communication strategies.• Check that dissemination of results was properlyaddressed at three levels: within the Consortium,the scientific community, and industry. • The largenumber of highly competent project membersallows for the replacements of management ifnecessary.

2

• FEL scientists fail toagree on consistent set ofuser requirements from theFEL in a timely manner. •Insufficient or delayed inputdata from WP3 through WP6for the CDR preparation.

WP2

• Improve the links between the Consortium andthe user communities for each of the FEL options.• Improve the link from the WPs and try to focuson achievable parameters in the medium term. •Make sure that the FEL scientists understand theimportance of agreeing a set of parameters in atimely manner.

3

• Short time available for theinjector designs • Delayedsupport and input data toWP2 • Too ambitious schemesuggested for the design. •Key components still notavailable.

WP3

• Check the human resources available and thedesign criteria. • Make a strict prioritization ofefforts and regularly review the progress. • Keymembers of these tasks will take active rolesin WP2, in order to timely support the facilitydesign. • Periodically review to check purposesand objectives.

4

• Problems in developinga standardized rf units.• The power tests on theaccelerating module do notreach the expected resultsin terms of gradients, faultrates, etc.

WP4

• Check again the design criteria and theparameters of the standardized rf unit that matchthe main design. • Perform a detailed analysis ofthe test procedures and critical items.

5

• Too “ambitious undulators”considered in thecomparative studies. •Insufficient support and/ordelayed input for WP2.

WP5

• Check the undulator comparative assessments,the technology readyness and the overall facilityperformance. • Improve the link with WP2, with aclear focus on the requested parameters from theundulator.

6

• Start to end simulations,covering the beam transportfrom the cathode to theundulator exit, are notcompleted in a timelymanner for the WP2. • Toolsfor modelling the machineare not working properly. •Tolerance studies will notprovide the expected results.

WP6

• Improve and stimulate regular contacts,iterations and meetings between WP2, WP5 andWP6. • Check the model and the tools used formodelling the machine. Benchmark the modeland software used with different models alreadyproven. • Check the model and the tools usedfor tolerance studies. Promote regular meetingwithin the Collaboration to discuss and addressthe problem.

7 • Appropriate contacts withthe scientific community WP7 • Improve and strengthen contacts with leading

scientific laboratories. • Organize thematic


of 33

Risknumber Description of risk WP Number Proposed risk-mitigation measures

to gather users demands onFELs and accelerators havenot been activated.

meetings and workshops to discuss the needs ofnew infrastructures at European and global levels.


of 33

1.3.6. WT6 Summary of project effort in person-months

WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 WP7 Total Person/Monthsper Participant

1 - ST 15 3 3 2 2 4 11 40

2 - CERN 2 8 2 10 0 4 2 28

3 - STFC 2 18 0 0 6 5 1 32

4 - SINAP 0 4 0 8 0 0 0 12

5 - IASA 2 0 6 0 0 2 1 11

6 - UU 0 4 0 4 0 6 0 14

7 - UoM 2 10 0 10 0 12 2 36

8 - ANSTO-AS 2 0 0 3 5 5 0 15

9 - UA-IAT 2 6 2 6 3 12 1 32

10 - ULANC 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10

11 - VDL ETG 0 0 0 10 0 0 2 12

12 - TU/e 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 12

13 - INFN 2 6 12 5 0 6 1 32

14 - Kyma 0 0 0 0 10 0 2 12

15 - SAPIENZA 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 12

16 - ENEA 2 0 0 0 21 6 1 30

17 - ALBA-CELLS 1 6 2 0 4 4 1 18

18 - CNRS 0 3 9 3 0 0 0 15

19 - KIT 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 18

20 - PSI 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 12

21 - CSIC 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 12

22 - UH/HIP 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5

23 - VU 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 14


of 33

WP1 WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5 WP6 WP7 Total Person/Monthsper Participant

24 - USTR 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6

Total Person/Months 32 68 76 78 81 78 27 440


of 33

1.3.7. WT7 Tentative schedule of project reviewsNo project reviews indicated


1. Project number

The project number has been assigned by the Commission as the unique identifier for your project. It cannot bechanged. The project number should appear on each page of the grant agreement preparation documents (part Aand part B) to prevent errors during its handling.

2. Project acronym

Use the project acronym as given in the submitted proposal. It can generally not be changed. The same acronym shouldappear on each page of the grant agreement preparation documents (part A and part B) to prevent errors during itshandling.

3. Project title

Use the title (preferably no longer than 200 characters) as indicated in the submitted proposal. Minor corrections arepossible if agreed during the preparation of the grant agreement.

4. Starting date

Unless a specific (fixed) starting date is duly justified and agreed upon during the preparation of the Grant Agreement,the project will start on the first day of the month following the entry into force of the Grant Agreement (NB : entry intoforce = signature by the Commission). Please note that if a fixed starting date is used, you will be required to provide awritten justification.

5. Duration

Insert the duration of the project in full months.

6. Call (part) identifier

The Call (part) identifier is the reference number given in the call or part of the call you were addressing, as indicatedin the publication of the call in the Official Journal of the European Union. You have to use the identifier given by theCommission in the letter inviting to prepare the grant agreement.

7. Abstract

8. Project Entry Month

The month at which the participant joined the consortium, month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all other startdates being relative to this start date.

9. Work Package number

Work package number: WP1, WP2, WP3, ..., WPn

10. Lead beneficiary

This must be one of the beneficiaries in the grant (not a third party) - Number of the beneficiary leading the work in thiswork package

11. Person-months per work package

The total number of person-months allocated to each work package.

12. Start month

Relative start date for the work in the specific work packages, month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all otherstart dates being relative to this start date.

13. End month

Relative end date, month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all end dates being relative to this start date.

14. Deliverable number

Deliverable numbers: D1 - Dn

15. Type

Please indicate the type of the deliverable using one of the following codes:R Document, reportDEM Demonstrator, pilot, prototypeDEC Websites, patent fillings, videos, etc.OTHERETHICS Ethics requirementORDP Open Research Data Pilot

16. Dissemination level


Please indicate the dissemination level using one of the following codes:PU PublicCO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)EU-RES Classified Information: RESTREINT UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC)EU-CON Classified Information: CONFIDENTIEL UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC)EU-SEC Classified Information: SECRET UE (Commission Decision 2005/444/EC)

17. Delivery date for Deliverable

Month in which the deliverables will be available, month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all delivery datesbeing relative to this start date.

18. Milestone number

Milestone number:MS1, MS2, ..., MSn

19. Review number

Review number: RV1, RV2, ..., RVn

20. Installation Number

Number progressively the installations of a same infrastructure. An installation is a part of an infrastructure that could beused independently from the rest.

21. Installation country

Code of the country where the installation is located or IO if the access provider (the beneficiary or linked third party) isan international organization, an ERIC or a similar legal entity.

22. Type of access

VA if virtual access,TA-uc if trans-national access with access costs declared on the basis of unit cost,TA-ac if trans-national access with access costs declared as actual costs, andTA-cb if trans-national access with access costs declared as a combination of actual costs and costs on the basis of

unit cost.

23. Access costs

Cost of the access provided under the project. For virtual access fill only the second column. For trans-national accessfill one of the two columns or both according to the way access costs are declared. Trans-national access costs on thebasis of unit cost will result from the unit cost by the quantity of access to be provided.


A 777431 - XLS Part B Page 1 of 109

CompactLight

History of Changes

Date Description of change

13/09/2017 A short description of the activities for the Open Research Data Pilot has been added to the workplan in part 3.1.

13/09/2017 Deliverable D1.2 “Data Management Plan” of type ORDP with due date in month 18 has been added to WP1, task 1.4.

13/09/2017 Declarations of the partners P2-CERN, P4-SINAP, P7-UoM, P8-ANSTO, P9-UA-IAT and P20-PSI that they commit to the ethical standards and guidelines of H2020 have been added to Section 5.1 Ethics.

13/09/2017 The 01 January 2018 has been selected as the start date for the project.

04/10/2017 Table 3.4.b in Section 3.4 has been updated.

09/10/2017

Tables for the involvement of third parties and the use of third party resources have been included for all partners in Section 4.2. All parties named “Associated Partners” in the first version are participating as Third Parties providing in-kind contributions free of charge and have been named accordingly.

25/10/2017 All beneficiaries that do not have Third Parties have been removed from section 4.2 and the costs of the in-kind contribution of ARCNL for P23-VU have been updated.

07/11/2017 In Section 4.1 and Table 3.3, for beneficiary 9 the Institute of Accelerator Technology has been replaced by Ankara Universitesi, which is the relevant legal entity.



Table of Contents

History of Changes ........................................................................................................................... 1

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. 2

1. EXCELLENCE ........................................................................................................... 4

1.1. Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 4

1.1.1. Motivation .......................................................................................................................... 4

1.1.2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4

1.1.3. Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 6

1.2. Relation to the work programme ............................................................................................. 8

1.2.1. UK XFEL ............................................................................................................................. 10

1.2.2. Turkey FEL ......................................................................................................................... 10

1.2.3. EuSPARC ........................................................................................................................... 11

1.2.4. FERMI ................................................................................................................................ 12

1.2.5. Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics ............................................................................... 14

1.2.6. Australian Synchrotron ..................................................................................................... 14

1.2.7. High energy photon beams (20 keV - 1 TeV) .................................................................... 15

1.3. Concept and approach ............................................................................................................ 17

1.3.1. Overall concept underpinning the project ........................................................................ 17 1.3.2. Level in Technology Readiness spectrum ......................................................................... 19 1.3.3. National and International research and innovation activities linked with this project .. 19 1.3.4. Overall approach and methodology ................................................................................. 24

1.4. Innovation potential of FELs ................................................................................................... 27

1.4.1. Innovation potential of FELs ............................................................................................. 28

1.4.2. Beyond the state-of-the-art FEL design ............................................................................ 28

2. IMPACT ............................................................................................................... 29

2.1. Expected impact ...................................................................................................................... 29

2.1.1. Technology areas benefiting from the project ................................................................. 31

2.1.2. Scientific areas benefiting from the project ..................................................................... 33

2.1.3. Industrial areas benefiting from the project .................................................................... 34

2.1.4. Socio-economic and humanities ....................................................................................... 35

2.1.4. Strategic Impact ............................................................................................................... 35

2.2. Measures to maximise impact ................................................................................................ 36

2.2.1. Dissemination and exploitation of results ......................................................................... 36 2.2.2. Communication activities .................................................................................................. 38

3. IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................. 42

3.1. Work plan — Work packages, deliverables and milestones ................................................... 42

3.2. Management structure and responsabilities .......................................................................... 45

3.2.1. Management structure and responsabilities ................................................................... 45



3.2.2. Internal reporting procedures .......................................................................................... 47

3.2.3. Risk analysis and mitigation measures ............................................................................ 47

3.3. Consortium as a whole ............................................................................................................ 47

3.4. Resources to be committed .................................................................................................... 56

4. MEMBERS OF THE CONSORTIUM ................................................................................ 60

4.1 Participants (applicants)........................................................................................................... 60

4.2. Third Parties involved in the project (including use of third party resources) ....................... 99

5. ETHICS AND SECURITY ........................................................................................... 103

5.1 Ethics ...................................................................................................................................... 103

5.2 Security ................................................................................................................................... 109



1. EXCELLENCE

1.1. Objectives

1.1.1. Motivation

Synchrotron radiation (SR) has become a fundamental and indispensable tool for studying matter, as shown by the large number of facilities in operation worldwide, close to eighty, which serve tens of thousands of users every year. The user community of synchrotron light sources spreads across a multi-tude of scientific and engineering disciplines including materials science, condensed-matter physics, atomic and molecular physics, life science and medicine, chemistry, and environmental sciences. The impact of SR across these disciplines cannot be doubted as evidenced by the five Nobel prizes that have been awarded in the past twenty years to scientists whose research has been made possible by SR1. The latest generation of SR source is based on Free Electron Lasers (FELs) driven by linacs, and features un-precedented performance in terms of pulse duration, brightness and coherence. The use of X-ray FELs, in the short time that they have been available, has already led to significant insights in a number of sci-entific fields such as atomic, plasma, solid-state physics, and macromolecular crystallography2. As researchers develop new exploitation techniques, increasingly based upon enhanced output from FELs such as two colour pulses, femtosecond and sub-femtosecond photon pulse lengths, and fully coherent pulses, the scientific reach of FELs will continue to expand3.

Our aim is to facilitate the widespread development of X-ray FEL facilities across Europe and beyond, by making them more affordable to construct and operate through an optimum combination of emerging and innovative accelerator technologies.

We will design a Hard X-ray FEL facility using the very latest concepts for bright electron photoinjectors, very high gradient accelerating structures and novel short period undulators. The resulting facility will benefit from a lower electron beam energy than current facilities, due to the enhanced undulator per-formance, will be significantly more compact as a consequence of this lower energy as well as due to the application of very high-gradient structures, and also have a much lower electrical power consump-tion than current facilities through the use of an X-band RF system. These ambitious but realistic aims will result in much lower construction and running costs making X-ray FELs affordable, even by national institutions or academia. We therefore anticipate that our Design Study will enable FEL facilities to pro-liferate across all of Europe and beyond much more rapidly than third generation light sources have managed over the past decades.

1.1.2. Introduction

In the last decades the X-ray research community has witnessed significant increases in the perform-ances of synchrotron light sources, with a rapid succession of first, second and third generations of X-ray light source facilities constructed worldwide. From the early 1950s to the 1970s the cycling electron syn-chrotrons, developed for physics research, are considered the first-generation light sources. At that time, SR was mostly considered a parasitic effect responsible for unwanted energy loss and its proper-

1 The five Nobel Prizes that have been made possible by SR were awarded in 1997, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2012.

2 C. Bostedt et al, 015007, Rev. Mod. Phys., Vol. 88, No. 1, 2016; J. Miao et al, Science 348, 530 (2015); M.N. Piancastelli et al,

Journal of Elect. Spect. and Rel. Phen. 181 (2010) 98–110. 3 R. Schoenlein et al., 2015, New Science Opportunities Enabled by LCLS-II X-ray Lasers, Report No. SLAC-R-1053; the Soft X-

ray Laser @ MAX IV: A Science Case for SXL, Sweden, 2016; Free-Electron Laser (FEL) Strategic Review, STFC 2016, UK.



ties were studied to validate theoretical models. The advantages of using SR for spectroscopy and dif-fraction were first realized in the 1960s and 1970s. In the mid-1970s, the demand for SR in Europe, Ja-pan and in the US led the countries to construct second-generation light sources: rings fully dedicated to SR research. The bending electromagnets in the accelerator were the primary sources of the SR. In the late 1980s other specialized devices, periodic magnetic structures called wigglers and undulators, were specifically developed to generate high intensity radiation. The third-generation SR sources were based upon these devices, with specific straight sections in the storage rings created for inserting them. The first third-generation sources began operation in the early 1990s.

The main figure of merit for SR is the brightness, which defines the intensity of radiation, within a given bandwidth around the desired wavelength, focused onto a sample of given area, with a particular solid angle.

Although spectacular, the brightness of third generation sources is far from fundamental limits in the X-ray region. Single pass FELs, the first sources based upon linear accelerators, can overcome limitations of ring-based X-ray sources. FELs can produce extremely high brightness and transversely coherent radia-tion by inducing a bunch-density modulation of the electron beam at X-ray wavelengths. This is achieved by the interaction of a bright electron beam from a linac with an intense optical field in the spatially pe-riodic magnetic field of an undulator. When electrons are bunched within an X-ray wavelength, the power radiated varies as the number of electrons squared, rather than linearly as for an unbunched beam. The characteristics of linac-based X-ray FELs are extraordinary, particularly their short pulse dura-tion, peak brightness, and coherence. The peak brightness of the X-ray FELs at SLAC and DESY are ~1010 times higher than that of third- generation storage ring sources, with ~100 times shorter pulses. Linac-based short-wavelength FELs constitute the fourth-generation light-sources.

Since the successful operation of FELs in Germany (FLASH), Japan (SACLA), Italy (FERMI) and the USA (LCLS), new X-ray FELs have been built and are now being commissioned in Germany (European XFEL), Switzerland (SwissFEL) and South Korea (PAL-XFEL). A number of other countries have considered or are actively considering FEL facilities at the present time; European examples include UK, Turkey, Sweden, The Netherlands and France. The strong scientific case for FEL beams is apparent from the inability of present facilities to meet the demands of the scientific community. At the LCLS the number of proposals has increased from ~30 in 2009 to close to 200 in 2014, of which only 20% are currently scheduled. Similarly at FERMI little more than 30% of the proposed experiments are currently scheduled and a similar situation exists at FLASH.

A major factor in the cost of the construction of FELs is the accelerator technology adopted. The major-ity of existing facilities utilise S-band linear accelerators given the maturity of the technology. This tech-nology, although consolidated through many decades of use, is not however optimal. At comparable accelerating fields, a higher frequency accelerating structure can achieve higher gradients and lower power requirements than those produced by lower frequency structures. The successful construction and operation of SACLA at a C-band frequency is testimony of the effectiveness of a higher accelerating frequency. In this case an 8 GeV electron beam with the characteristics required to drive a FEL can be generated in the space of 400 m compared to 600 m at S-Band (inclusive of injector and bunch compres-sors). Subsequently, also SwissFEL adopted C-band technology also SwissFEL adopted C-band technol-ogy. The use of X-band technology further improves the situation and we expect to more than halve the required length of the accelerator and associated infrastructure compared to these machines. For large-scale accelerator projects such as synchrotron radiation light sources and FELs the cost breakdown is typically: 70% in the civil engineering, accelerator and the first beamlines, and 30% for personnel and management. Simple scaling of the accelerator length can result in 20 to 25% savings. More details of the results of a preliminary performance and cost optimization will be addressed in section 1.3.



During the last few years, research and development of X-band accelerator technologies has seen tre-mendous progress within the context of the next generation of electron-positron linear colliders, where very high gradients are necessary to achieve the multi-TeV beam energy target for particle physics. The CLIC Study at CERN is the most remarkable example, where accelerating gradients three to five times larger than those in operational linacs have been demonstrated in prototype accelerating structures. Thanks to the linear collider R&D, X-band technology has reached a maturity level that encourages the envisioning of other possible applications beyond particle physics. This Design Study enables to use a world leading accelerator technology, developed for the most advanced of particle accelerators of the future, to benefit today’s society.

High-frequency X-band structures can also run at low gradients and high repetition rate (kHz regime), enabling a new set of operational scenarios for high average power X-ray FELs, currently in high demand for scientific and technological application.

In parallel to X-band developments, undulators have also made significant improvements in capability in recent years, with the promise of more to come. Two new undulator technologies have now been proven on light source facilities, cryogenic permanent magnet undulators and superconducting undula-tors, and both continue to improve in performance as a greater confidence and understanding in each type develops. Neither of these two new technologies has been applied to an XFEL design until now.

Reducing the required electron beam energy through the use of more advanced undulators results in additional savings roughly proportional to the energy reduction. The application of both higher fre-quency acceleration and advanced undulators could facilitate also the upgrade of existing facilities to higher energy, with the possibility of minimal or no increase in civil construction.

This Design Study, based on validated high-gradient X-band and novel undulator technologies, will also enable upgrades of existing FELs (e.g. FERMI) to the higher energies within physical space limitations than would otherwise not be possible due to the limited accelerating gradients of the S and C-band structures. It will also allow existing facilities to expand their user communities and scientific programs taking advantage of the shorter produced photon wavelengths. In fact, high-frequency X-band struc-tures can also run at low gradients and high repetition rate (kHz regime), enabling a new set of opera-tional scenarios for high average power X-ray FELs, currently in high demand for scientific and techno-logical application.

The expansion of the use of X-band technology which this design study has the potential to stimulate, will also benefit the particle physics community such as future energy frontier lepton colliders like CLIC, or other Higgs factories, through the industrialisation of the technology and the broadening and en-hancing of the skill base in this area.

Concerning the industrial applications, many study groups have suggested high-power FELs, operating at 13.5 nm, as a possible high volume lithography source for manufacturing computer chips and electronic components.

1.1.3. Objectives

The key objective of the CompactLight Design Study is to demonstrate, through a conceptual design, the feasibility of an innovative, compact and cost effective FEL facility suited for user demands identi-fied in the science case.

In order to achieve this, the high-level objectives are:

1) to specify the user demands and design parameters for a compact and cost effective FEL driven hard X-ray facility;



2) to advance innovative designs for X-band and undulator technology as new standards for accelerator based compact photon sources;

3) to present a flexible design that can be adapted to local implementation demands with pho-ton source options for soft and hard X-rays as well as Compton light.

The main cost driver for every FEL is the beam energy. By taking advantage of the latest technological undulator innovations, including anticipating further advances that will be proven in the coming few years, we will be able to lower the electron beam energy requirement significantly. SwissFEL is currently the most ambitious XFEL in terms of undulator technology. By implementing a room temperature in-vacuum device, they are able to achieve 0.1 nm wavelength output at 5.8 GeV. Were SwissFEL to now implement the latest generation of proven cryogenic in-vacuum permanent magnet undulators, they would be able to achieve the same wavelength at only 5.3 GeV, a ~10% saving in beam energy. The cur-rent generation of superconducting undulators, which are optimized for high average beam current storage ring light sources, already exceed the performance of cryogenic permanent magnet undulators. A new generation of superconducting undulators for FELs with very low average beam currents, and consequently much smaller wakefield induced heat loads (including taking account of the much smaller bunch lengths) on the cryogenic vacuum beam screen, are able to operate with a similar magnet beam aperture as permanent magnet undulators. In this case our preliminary calculations suggest that an XFEL could generate 0.1 nm wavelength output at only 4.6 GeV, a ~20% reduction in beam energy. Further advances in superconducting undulator technology, such as making use of Nb3Sn rather than NbTi, have the potential for even greater impact. The selection and optimisation of the undulator technology and parameters will be a key aspect of this Design Study, including any potential detrimental effects, such as the subsequent reduction in photon flux due to the lower electron beam power.

A substantial fraction of the FELs cost, space requirements and power consumption are caused by the linac that accelerates the electron beam. Normal conducting X-band technology is capable of providing efficient, high-gradient acceleration at limited cost. An important R&D programme in the high-energy physics laboratories has developed this technology and demonstrated high performance prototypes. Our goal is to optimize and make this technology available for FELs. This requires adapting the design to FEL specifications and to the needs of large-series industrial production.

The ambitious, but realistic, aim of developing a common facility design with lower beam energy and more compact in size will result in a much lower construction cost and a much lower running cost – making X-ray FELs affordable. The degree of savings will be addressed more quantitatively in section 1.3.1. We therefore anticipate that our Design Study will enable FEL facilities to proliferate across all of Europe and beyond much more rapidly than third generation light sources have managed over the past decades.

The specific goals to reach our objective are:

Determine the overall design and parameters for an ideal X-band driven FEL for hard X-rays (WP2).

Design the main machine sub-assemblies required, including e-Gun, RF power units and power distribution systems, accelerating structures and undulators (WPs 3 to 5).

Specify the key parameters of the machine including beam structure, lattice, geometric layout, mechanical tolerances, magnetic transverse focusing, required diagnostics, while identifying a solution as common as possible (WP6).

Gathering the user demands on FELs and accelerator upgrades, in the near and mid-term future, emphasizing the needs from European laboratories and global partners, to develop plans for a harmonious integration of the X-band technology for new Research Infrastructures (WP7).



A standard layout of an FEL is shown in Fig. 1.1: it consists of a high-brightness electron source, a pre-acceleration section up to 300 MeV, a laser heater, to optimise the micro-bunching instability, three linear accelerating sections (L1, L2, and L3 in the figure) and two magnetic chicanes, to achieve accelera-tion and longitudinal bunch compression before delivering the beam to the undulator lines where the photons are created.

The aim of the CompactLight Design Study is to determine the key parameters of a hard X-ray FEL facility based on high-gradient accelerating structures and novel short period undulators. A preliminary set of CompactLight facility parameters is given in Table 1.1 below. These will be the starting point for our De-sign Study and are expected to evolve during the project as the individual accelerator and undulator technologies are developed and the facility design is established. The pulse bandwidth and duration will necessitate the use of advanced FEL configurations, beyond the first generation XFEL capabilities.

Figure 1.1: Layout of a FEL facility.

Table 1.1: Preliminary Parameters of CompactLight hard X-ray FEL facility.

Parameter Value Unit

Minimum Wavelength 0.1 nm

Photons per pulse >1012

Pulse bandwidth <<0.1 %

Repetition rate 100 to 1000 Hz

Pulse duration <1 to 50 fs

Undulator Period 10 mm

K value 1.13

Electron Energy 4.6 GeV

Bunch Charge <250 pC

Normalised Emittance <0.5 rad

The higher accelerating gradients and reduced stored energy that can be achieved using X-band accel-eration, combined with new short-period undulators, can significantly reduce the length of the linac and the overall length of the facility. The combination will also bring significant improvements in power effi-ciency and all taken together reduce the cost. For instance, if one imagines a machine like LCLS based on X-band technology and short period undulators, the length of both the accelerator and the undulators could be about 200 meters. This figure has to be compared with the length of the actual LCLS, which is about 1230 meters including 1100 meters of accelerator and 130 meters of undulators.

1.2. Relation to the work programme

This Design Study responds to the Horizon2020-INFRADEV 01-2017 call. The aim of this call is “to sup-port the conceptual and technical design and preparatory actions for new research infrastructures, which



are of a clear European dimension and interest. Major upgrades of existing infrastructures may also be considered if the end result is intended to be equivalent to, or capable of replacing, an existing infrastruc-ture”.

CompactLight will open the way to the construction of a class of regional and national FELs, and will de-velop the capability of industry to competitively supply components for accelerators. The relationship and impact with the work program can be explained by considering the history and evolution of third-generation light sources. Among the three hard X-ray facilities made in the nineties, the Advanced Pho-ton Source (APS) in USA, SPring-8 in Japan and the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) in Grenoble, the latter was the first to operate. The large European facility came on line for experiments with a 6-GeV storage ring and a partial complement of commissioned beamlines in 1994. At the present time, ESRF operates more than 40 beamlines. During the last two decades following the start of the ESRF, a multitude of physically smaller, and less expensive, machines have been, and are being con-structed, to respond to the increasing demand of users. This is true all around the world: from Canada in North America to Brazil in South America, to Japan, China, Thailand, and India in Asia and especially so in Europe, with examples in Sweden, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, UK, France, Spain, Poland, etc. Similarly, CompactLight will open up the way to affordable FELs, to complement the operation of the European XFEL and increase the beamtime access capacity for European researchers.

The outcome of CompactLight is a Conceptual Design Report for the next generation of affordable FEL facilities in Europe, supported by an appropriate industrial development. This Design Report will discuss the major choices for design alternatives (soft X-rays, hard X-rays) in terms of their scientific and strate-gic relevance and will enable the development of new research infrastructures, as well as the upgrade of existing ones.

It is worth recalling that there exist only and three hard X-ray FELs in the world: the linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) in the USA, the SPring-8 Angstrom Compact Free Electron Laser (SACLA) in Japan, and the South Korea FEL (PAL-XFEL) that recently started user operation. Two more facilities, in Germany (Euro-pean XFEL) and Switzerland (SwissFEL), are in the advanced commissioning phase and will come into user operation during 2017 or 2018. Demonstrating the suitability of X-band technology for FEL applica-tions will boost the proliferation of affordable hard X-ray FELs all across Europe.

To demonstrate the relation of CompactLight to the work program, specifically the conceptual and tech-nical design of new research infrastructures and/or the upgrading of existing ones, we elaborate a few specific examples:

i. The UK and Turkish FEL programs: Both are pursuing the design and construction of hard X-ray FEL facilities and will greatly benefit from this Design Study.

ii. EuSPARC (INFN) and FERMI (Elettra-Sincrotrone Trieste) in Italy, which will benefit from an X-band extension of their facilities to enable soft and hard X-ray production. X-band high gradient acceleration, applied to the requirements of an XFEL, makes the upgrade of both the machines possible within the constraints given by the limited space available at their facilities.

iii. Two non-European Labs, Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (SINAP) and the Australian Synchrotron (AS), both with operating synchrotron light sources, are actively planning hard X-ray FEL facilities.

The broad range of user and machine requirements identified by these examples will be addressed by the design study.

Furthermore, the development of Linear Accelerators based on high gradient X-band RF structures, in-



corporating X-band photo-injectors and able to generate very high brightness electron beams and high energy photon beams, will also support and pave the way for very ambitious applications in photon based science (see par. 1.2.4.).

More details on these new facility and upgrade projects are elaborated below and the connections to this design study are highlighted, in order to give the relation to the work program with specific examples.

1.2.1. UK XFEL

The UK carried out an FEL Strategic Review in 2016 and concluded that a national hard X-ray FEL user facility would be essential in the future to meet the capacity and performance requirements of UK re-searchers. The review noted that three specific advantages of FELs compared with storage rings would enable experiments that are otherwise not possible. These are: very high temporal and spatial resolu-tion, the ability to out-run radiation damage (diffraction before destruction) and unprecedented coher-ence. Key research subjects requiring time and spatial resolution include; understanding the intermedi-ate steps in a chemical reaction (bond making/breaking), understanding the dynamics of structural changes in membrane proteins and soluble proteins, understanding catalytic processes by following re-action pathways, and understanding how charge, spin, orbital and lattice degrees of freedom interact to produce emergent phenomena and exotic states of matter. The ability of FELs to obtain diffraction or imaging data from a sample before radiation damage harms or destroys it is vital in the analysis of soft and biological material. In the past, the use of X-rays has been limited by the radiation damage these can cause. When using an XFEL, however, the exposure time is relatively short and this allows imaging to be completed before the effects of radiation damage become apparent.

An important point to note is that the UK has a unique opportunity to co-locate an XFEL with the state-of-the-art suite of ultrafast, high-energy, high-powered laser sources currently in place at STFC’s Central Laser Facility at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. No similar co-location of optical and X-ray lasers is en-visaged anywhere else in the world. Such a step would therefore provide the UK with world-leading fa-cilities for creating and probing matter at extreme conditions, unmatched for the foreseeable future and therefore highly attractive to international users. For this reason the location of UK XFEL is already es-tablished.

The UK XFEL user community are now tasked with defining the user facility specifications in parallel with developing and broadening the user community at overseas facilities such as LCLS and European XFEL. The stated plan is that the decision to fund the UK XFEL will be taken around 2020. These aspirations and timescales fit perfectly with the CompactLight Design Study as we will develop a hard X-ray FEL de-sign tailored to the UK user specifications (which have informed our preliminary list of parameters in Table 1.1 above) and the design will be complete in time to inform the UK funding decision. We also an-ticipate that our innovative design will make the UK XFEL more affordable, addressing the main concern expressed in the UK strategy document.

1.2.2. Turkey FEL

The currently proposed programme of the Turkish Accelerator Centre (TAC) has three relevant projects: TARLA (the Turkish Accelerator and Radiation Laboratory in Ankara), TURKAY (the Turkish Synchrotron Radiation Facility, a world-class 3rd generation light source) and the Turkish X-Ray Free Electron Laser. TARLA is a free electron laser operating in the infrared regime (electron energy 40 MeV) with wave-

lengths of order 2-250 m, whereas the X-ray FEL will have wavelengths of 0.1-10 nm. This combination of facilities covers a wide range of scientific applications in physics, chemistry, biology, life sciences, medicine, nanotechnology and engineering.



The TAC team has been preparing a conceptual design report for these projects since 2010 with support of the Ministry of Development of Turkey. Different types of accelerating structures have been consid-ered, including the TESLA superconductive cavities which are employed in TARLA. In order to reduce the the cost, room temperature X-band structures are considered for an X-ray FEL facility. Therefore the TAC team focused on driving their X-ray FEL facility with X-band structures, using the recent developments in power sources for X-band frequencies. A design for a cost effective and compact FEL facility will cer-tainly improve the probability that such a project will be funded.

The proposed X-ray FEL facility is a two-stage 5 to 6 GeV electron driver, consisting of a low-emittance injector and two high-gradient X-band linacs, delivering a high-repetition rate low-emittance beam to one or several undulator sections and photon beam lines connected to a user facility. It is similar to the C-band based SwissFEL. Using X-band structures at 12 GHz, instead of C-band at 6 GHz, for the main linac, allows an accelerating gradient of 70 MV/m, instead of 35 MV/m. This makes the proposed linac more compact and upgradeable to higher energy or higher repetition rate (500 Hz instead of 100 Hz). The expected effective length of the linac is 120 m.

The TAC team plans to also include options in their facility design for the bunch time structure as well as higher energies depending on trends of user committees. The options can be summarized as following:

i. The machine would be upgraded to 15 GeV in order to generate 1 Å FEL with larger undulator

period and stronger undulator strength (for example u=3 cm and K=2.2). This option would give more photons approximately 1x1012 photons/pulse and high brilliance value of 2x1033 pho-tons/s/0.1%bw/mm2/mrad2. These values are sufficient for single molecule/crystal imaging. In this case it is not necessary to run the machine at a repetition rate higher than 50 Hz.

ii. Running the machine at 3 GeV in order to generate soft X-ray FEL. In that case the opportunity of running the X-band structures up to 500 Hz makes the proposed facility unique. For example, 100 bunch/pulse and 500 Hz rep-rate would deliver 50,000 pulses per second, which is almost two times that of the European XFEL project.

1.2.3. EuSPARC

On the wake of the exciting results obtained so far at the SPARC_LAB test-facility in Frascati, INFN is cur-rently investigating the possibility to design and build a new multi-disciplinary user-facility, equipped with a soft X-ray Free Electron Laser (FEL) driven by a ~1 GeV high brightness electron linac based on X-band RF technology. With the tentative acronym of EuSPARC (European Source for Plasma Accelerators and Radiation user Communities) it is conceived as an innovative and evolutionary tool for investigations in a wide field of scientific, technological and industrial applications. EuSPARC in its final stage will be a “particle beams factory”, based on a combination of a new compact X-band high brightness electron linac and of a high power (~300 TW) laser, already available in the SPARC_LAB facility. It will be able to

produce high quality beams of electrons, photons (from THz to Compton backscattered -rays), protons and eventually positrons, neutrons and muons that will be available for a wide national and interna-tional scientific community interested to take profit of advanced particle and radiation sources.

EuSPARC will also address investigations on advanced accelerator techniques such as plasma accelera-tors. It is in fact widely accepted by the international accelerator scientific community that a fundamen-tal milestone towards the realization of a plasma driven future Linear Collider (LC) will be the integration of the new high gradient accelerating plasma modules in a short wavelength Free Electron Laser user

facility (see for example the approved Design Study “European Plasma Research Accelerator with eXcellence In Applications“ EuPRAXIA (INFRADEV-1-2014)). The capability of producing the required high quality beams and the operational reliability of the plasma accelerator modules will be certified when such an advanced FEL radiation source will be able to drive external user experiments. This fundamental



goal will be integrated in the EuSPARC facility by using the proposed X-band linac to drive Plasma Oscil-lations in the so called Particle-driven Wake Field Acceleration (PWFA) scheme. In this configuration a compact X-band linac could represent an alternative power source to drive Plasma Oscillations with at least 2 important advantages compared to other schemes (LWFA) based on high power lasers: 1) timing and synchronization are rather simpler issues in PWFA since both drive and witness bunches are gener-ated by the same source and 2) X-band RF electron linacs can achieve repetition rates as high as GHz in pulsed mode, for comparison high-power lasers are at present limited to a 10 Hz repetition rate. With the EuPRAXIA design study mainly being LWFA oriented, the investigation proposed within this CompactLight Design Study will be complementary and synergic with the EuPRAXIA goals.

A preliminary layout of the EuSPARC facility is shown in the following figure:

Figure 1.2: Preliminary layout of the EuSPARC facility.

From left to right one can see a 60 m long tunnel hosting a high brightness 150 MeV photoinjector equipped with a hybrid compressor scheme based on both velocity bunching and magnetic chicane. Room for a laser heater is also foreseen. The energy boost from 150 MeV up to 1 GeV will be provided by chain of high gradient (90 MV/m) X-band RF cavities. At the linac exit a 5 m long (removable) PWFA module will be also installed. In the downstream tunnel a 40 m long undulator hall is shown where the beam matching section and the undulator chain will be installed. Downstream again after a 12 m long photon diagnostic section a “near” users hall is shown. Soft X-ray radiation will be transported to the

“far” user hall through a 66 m long photon transport line. Additional radiation sources as THz and -ray Compton sources are foreseen in the other shown beam lines. The upper yellow room is dedicated to Klystrons and Modulators. In the lower light-blue room will be installed the existing 300 TW laser (even-tually upgraded up to 500 TW) which is supposed to drive plasma targets in the dark-blue room in order to provide secondary particle sources to users in the downstream 25 m long user area.

More advanced scheme such as seeded FEL configuration or high gain harmonic generation will also be investigated.

1.2.4. FERMI

The FERMI free electron laser is a fourth generation light source at the research centre Elettra – Sincrotrone Trieste, Italy that functions as a user facility producing photons in the ultraviolet and soft X-ray wavelength regions. FERMI is based on a normal conducting S-band linac (3 GHz) operated up to 1.5 GeV. FERMI could be upgraded to reach hard X-ray wavelengths by increasing the energy reach of its linac. Given the limited space available, the only option to achieve this aim is the adoption of high-



gradient X-band acceleration.

The scientific case, based on three experimental programs, namely Diffraction and Projection Imaging (DiProI), Elastic and Inelastic Scattering (EIS), Low Density Matter (LDM), calls for stable, high peak brightness, nearly fully coherent, narrow bandwidth photon pulses together with wavelength tunability and variable polarization. FERMI is based on two complementary FEL lines, FEL-1 and FEL-24,5,6. FEL-1 is a single stage cascaded FEL delivering light in the 80-20nm-wavelength range, while FEL-2 is a double stage cascaded FEL where the additional stage extends the frequency up-conversion to the spectral range of 20-4nm. The FEL-1 beam line has been in operation since the end of 2010, with user experi-ments carried out since 2011. FERMI FEL-2 is a seeded FEL operating with a double stage cascade in the "fresh bunch injection" mode7. The two stages are two high gain harmonic generation FELs where the first stage is seeded by the 3rd harmonic of a Ti:Sa laser system, which is up-converted to the 4th-12th harmonic. In FEL-2, the output of the first stage is then used to seed the second stage. The two FERMI sources are not operated simultaneously. The beam is optimised from time to time for the operation of one of the two FEL lines. A real breakthrough could be provided by two sources, which could simultane-ously be used for experiments, where one of the sources is used as a pump to create specific excited states and the other as a probe of the evolving transient states.

The proposal is therefore aimed at studying the possibility of extending the FERMI FEL infrastructure to include a third FEL beamline, which can be operated together with the existing two. The third FEL should address photon energies up to 2 keV, with the advantage of providing two independent pulses with dif-ferent colours. This will allow simultaneous running of two experiments and expanding the research opportunities using much shorter wavelengths, covering almost all L edges of elements with a broad application of fields, spanning over physics, chemistry and biology.

An important example is the study of water splitting where the photosynthesis approach uses a Mn con-taining compound, so both the evolution of the O 1s and Mn 2p edges can be followed. All complex cor-related oxides are hungry for these wavelengths where temporal and spatial behaviours of spin, charge, lattice, and orbital orders require significant signals at the O and metal (e.g. Mn, V, Fe, etc.) L edges. Provided the short wavelength pulses are multiply polarized the higher contrast using the 2p edges of magnetic materials such as Co, Fe, Ni will be a great advantage in exploring dynamics in magnetic mate-rials with high resolution using holography. Implementing self-seeding as in LCLS using a monochroma-tor set-up will also be an asset.

Accessing this wavelength range would require an increased energy from the linac. Such a beam energy upgrade could be reached by adding a new linac segment, hosted in the existing linac tunnel, using in-frastructures and space already available. Considering the current scenario, using very high-gradient accelerating structures such as the X-band structures proposed in CompactLight which could provide gradients as high as 100 MV/m, it is possible to go beyond 3.5 GeV operating reliably at structure gradi-ents of less than 70 MV/m.

The use of two sources in simultaneous operation, and synchronized for pump-and-probe experiments, would constitute a unique world opportunity for a class of experiments that could not be done at any other facility. Assuming a beam energy of 3.5 GeV, a minimum undulator gap of 7 mm, and a remnant field of 1.3 T, the undulator parameters scale as shown in Fig. 1.2.

4 C. J. Bocchetta et al., “Conceptual Design Report for the FERMI@Elettra project”, ST/F-TN-07/12 (2007).

5 E. Allaria et al., Nat. Phot. 6, 233 (2012).

6 E. Allaria et al., New J. Phys. 14, 113009 (2012).

7 Ben-Zvi, I., Yang, K. M. & Yu, L. H. The ‘fresh-bunch’ technique in FELs. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 318, 726–729

(1992).



Figure 1.3: The plot shows that at a beam energy of about 3.5 GeV a

wavelength range of 0.5-1 nm could be accessed.

A detailed study of the linac configuration, the FEL source parameter optimization and an estimate of the expected FEL performance will be discussed in this Design Study. Particular attention will be given to the synergy between the two sources, whilst preserving the possibility of simultaneous use of the syn-chronized pulses in the same dedicated experimental station. This will also need the implementation of new concepts for splitting and controlling the timing that should go down to the ns time scale.

The peculiarity of this ambitious and challenging research program is that the new machine layout will leave the total length of the linac tunnel unchanged and could be implemented using a progressive ap-proach, minimizing the cost and impact on the present facility. Such a research program can only be pursued using high gradient structures.

1.2.5. Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics

SINAP has been developing FEL technology for several years. In particular it has planned a compact hard X-ray FEL based on X-band high gradient technology. In the last years, SINAP has successfully carried out many advanced and outstanding FEL experiments at the SDUV-FEL facility, such as SASE, HGHG, first ECHO, first cascading HGHG. Currently SINAP is working at a soft X-ray FEL project (SXFEL), which is in the commissioning phase. A plan for a compact hard X-ray FEL facility has been also developed over the past few years and has been submitted to the Chinese government for approval. If approved, it will be built after the completion of the SXFEL project. The overall length of this facility is limited to less than 580 meters, with 200 meters for the linac, which is expected to reach 6.5 GeV to 8 GeV in energy. Con-sidering these constraints, the use of X-band high-gradient accelerating structures will be almost mandatory.

SINAP is very interested to participate in the CompactLight Design Study project, and has already started an R&D program on X-band high gradient technology and advanced linac designs for compact FEL facilities, very important and beneficial for future hard X-ray FEL development in China.

1.2.6. Australian Synchrotron

The Australian Synchrotron (AS) is a light source facility that has been in operation since 2007. It is one of the largest pieces of scientific research infrastructure in the Southern Hemisphere and has served over 4,000 users to date, both Australian and international. It is a third-generation light source with a 3 GeV storage ring that has set the world record for vertical emittance, achieving sub-picometer radians. One of our core values is continuous improvement, so as our users start to gain experience overseas by



winning beam time on X-ray FELs like LCLS, naturally we are interested in exploring the possibility of hosting a FEL in Australia. We have a strong collaboration with European research and with CERN spe-cifically, both historically through our parent organization ANSTO and more recently through the Aus-tralian Collaboration for Accelerator Science working in the CLIC Collaboration.

In particular, in order to make a compact and more affordable FEL in the next decade, the CLIC X-band accelerator technology is looking like a very promising solution to fulfill this aim. The medium term goals of the accelerator group at the Australian Synchrotron involve optimizing the existing storage ring as the full complement of beamlines is installed, then to upgrade the storage ring lattice to an ultimate storage ring with a diffraction limited X-ray source to fully utilize the capabilities of the new beamlines. For this strategy to be realized, a new full-energy low-emittance linac will be required to inject into the up-graded storage ring. Here the compact and modular CLIC X-band technology can also be exploited to generate 3 GeV electrons over a short distance, then extended to generate a 6 GeV or greater beam to drive a FEL. Australia is keenly interested in the X-band technology for the promising way it will link in with the accelerator upgrade plans.

The Australian Synchrotron is strongly supportive and willing to contribute to the research and devel-opment into X-band accelerator technology, as well as reaping the benefits once it has been industrialized.

1.2.7. High energy photon beams (20 keV - 1 TeV)

Linear Accelerators based on high gradient X-band RF structures, and in particular those incorporating X-band photo-injectors, are well known for their potentialities to generate very high brightness electron beams, thanks to superior performances in the achievable peak accelerating field. The capability to achieve very high phase space densities (i.e. high brightness) is of paramount relevance not only to drive X-ray Free Electron Lasers, but also to maximise the luminosity of electron-photon colliders. These rep-resent another class of advanced radiation sources typically known as Compton/Thomson Sources (ICS)8,

generating X and rays via back-scattering of optical photon beams (delivered by lasers) by high bright-ness electron beams. The wide range of applications enabled by these radiation sources span from ad-vanced radiological imaging with mono-chromatic X-rays (20-150 keV), to nuclear photonics / nuclear

physics with high spectral density rays (1-20 MeV) to more exotic schemes of photon-photon and had-ron-photon colliders for fundamental science and GeV-to-TeV-class photon beam generation.

Typical requirements of imaging applications for X-rays generated by Inverse Compton Sources are high flux (above 1012 photons/s) with reasonable bandwidths (1-10%) and full control of tunability (typically in the 20-150 keV) and polarization9. To attain these performances, an X-band linac should be operated in multi-bunch mode and maximum repetition rate, so to match the 100 Hz (upgradable to few hun-dreds Hz) rep rate of the J-class collision laser, and the recirculating laser pulse at the 10-20 ns scale10. To reach such a goal a substantial fraction of a nC bunch charge should be accelerated up to a final en-ergy in the range 50-200 MeV with outstanding transverse emittance and energy spread (1 mm·mrad

and 10-3 respectively) so to focus down the beam at a 10-15m spot size in the collision point with rea-sonably long diffraction length (beta-function)11,12.

8 C. Sun and Y.K. Wu, PRSTAB 14 (2011) 044701

9 A. Bacci et al., Proc. IPAC2016, ISBN 978-3-95450-147-21747

10 L. Serafini et al., ELI-NP-GBS TDR, http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.3669

11 V. Petrillo et al., NIM-A 693 (2012)

12 A. Bacci et al., JAP 113 (2013) 194508


http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.3669


Achieving final energies above 500 MeV would allow generating MeV-class photon beams with spectral densities above 104 photons/s·eV, a reasonable target for Nuclear Resonance Fluorescence experi-ments10. It should be noticed that the higher is the electron beam brightness achieved, the larger the spectral densities and/or fluxes per unit bandwidth achievable by ICSs. Under this respect the X-band RF technology holds the best promises to increase the state of the art of beam brightness attainable with electron beams. A design of an X-band based ICS is per se an important step forward in upgrading the expected performances of ICSs in general.

Another class of fundamental experiments for QED, and High Energy Physics in general, which could greatly benefit from the availability of X-band linacs, are those based on electron-photon and photon-photon collisions. Here the luminosity requirements ask for nC bunches focused to micron spot sizes at the interaction point. 3 major schemes are under investigation and definitely deserve a deeper analysis aiming at carrying out specific design studies: a) a twin system of ICSs driven by X-band linacs b) a col-lider based on a 1 Angstrom X-band FEL (as those discussed in previous sections) colliding against one ICS of the kind discussed at point a, and c) a photon-hadron collider based on a X-band FEL photon beam back-scattered by a LHC-like proton beam to generate TeV-class photon beams.

In case a) the typical electron beam energy is in the range 150-250 MeV, so to generate 2 twin colliding

ray beams with energies in the range 0.5-2 MeV, equivalent to an invariant mass of the collision in the range 1-4 MeV, spanning across the Breit-Wheeler threshold, located at about 1.02 MeV, where also the total cross section for photon-photon scattering reaches a peak at about 1 micro-barn13. Luminosities in excess of 1026 cm-2s-1 must be achieved in order to generate an event rate of a few per hour. Photon-photon scattering and Breit-Wheeler reactions (creation of electron-positron pairs from the collision of two photons) have been predicted long ago but never experimentally observed so far. Since their Feyn-man diagrams are linked to the basic nature of quantum vacuum, these reactions are a direct probe of its nature and can give many valuable insights to cosmological open problems (transparency of the universe).

In case b) the photon-photon collision is asymmetric, i.e. 10 keV FEL photons collide with MeV-class ray photons from an ICS (of the kind used in case a). The goal is to span the photon-photon cross section below Breit-Wheeler threshold with a boosted collider, potentially helpful in enhancing the signal over background, and to exploit and take advantage of the large number of photons per pulse carried typi-cally by FELs (in excess of 1012, to be compared to less than 109 of ICS) and its focusability below the micron spot size.

In case c) the FEL photons, in the energy range of a few keV, collide with a highly relativistic proton beam as those circulating in hadron colliders (TeV-class energy) and are back-scattered by the protons to generate up to a few TeV photons (a record energy for artificially produced photons) propagating as a beam (collimated, quasi-monochromatic, polarized) along-side the tangent of the proton beam orbit, and can be used for further HEP experiments. At the accessible luminosities, a few tens of photons can be produced at any collision between the 1012 protons (per bunch) and the 1012-1013 FEL photons (per pulse): in this way the proton beam life-time is not significantly degraded by the Compton back-scatter-ing, and the TeV photon beam generation can be implemented parasitically w.r.t. any other experiment running inside the hadron collider lay-out14.

Key issues for all cases a, b and c is the electron beam brightness, i.e. the capability to generate nC-class bunches with small transverse emittance and low energy spread, so to assure focusability at the micron

13

D. Micieli et al., PRAB 19 (2016) 093401 14

L. Serafini, F. Broggi, and C. Curatolo, Production of TeV-class photons via Compton back-scattering on proton beams of a keV high brilliance FEL, accepted for publ. on NIM-B



spot size level with diffraction length (beam beta-function) at the focal spot significantly longer than the bunch length, in order to avoid luminosity deteriorations due to beam diffraction (the so called hour-glass effect).

1.3. Concept and approach

1.3.1. Overall concept underpinning the project

The overall concept underlying this proposal is to bring together recent advances in many of the impor-tant technical systems which make up an XFEL injector, linac and undulator to produce the design of a next-generation facility with significantly lower cost and size than existing facilities. The goal is to make XFELs feasible for smaller countries, regions and universities.

There are a number of new (and imminent) XFEL facilities around the world including the supercon-ducting European XFEL, FLASH and LCLS-2 and the normal conducting SACLA, the PAL-XFEL and the SwissFEL as well as older facilities such as the LCLS and FERMI. All of these facilities have designs that were fixed, and technological choices made, at least five years ago and in some case many more.

In the intervening period there has been intense electron-accelerator development driven by the XFEL community itself, the linear-collider community as well as by other applications such as Compton scat-tering sources. Relevant advances include:

Lower emittance and higher repetition-rate photo-injectors

High-gradient linacs – Gradients in excess of 100 MV/m are now routinely achieved.

High-efficiency klystrons – Techniques to bring efficiencies above 60% at high frequency have been demonstrated.

Advanced concept undulators – Cryogenic permanent magnet undulators and superconducting undulators have both been demonstrated and since used operationally on 3rd generation light sources in recent years.

Improved diagnostics including X-band deflectors for longitudinal bunch dynamics

Better beam dynamics and optimization tools including those developed for linear colliders.

It is our belief that these developments, taken and optimized together in a comprehensive study, will allow us to design a facility with significantly lower cost and size than existing facilities.

On a more general level, in order to fully understand the different technologies and systems, and to set up and carry out an optimization that takes advantage of their interplay, we have assembled for this proposal a collaboration with world-class expertise in the crucial areas of an XFEL. This design study is to be carried out at European, in fact world, scale even if the target clients for the XFEL are national and university-scale – unblocking the contradiction that potential small-scale users do not have broad enough expertise to design their own facility. Our collaboration thus has the potential to amplify the reach of XFELs within their corresponding user communities (chemistry, biology, material science etc.), by increasing accessibility and beam time and serve a broader population of institutions and users.

At the core of the design process will be an overall computer-based optimization, which incorporates modelled performances, costs and interplays of the various systems. One of the specific means will be to adapt the optimization tool developed by the CLIC study, and used most recently in the re-baselining of the 380 GeV initial energy stage. This design and optimization activity is the primary role of WP2, Facility design and Integration. The cost and performance models of the technical systems will be based on simulations and prototypes (where appropriate). This work will be carried out by the four technical sys-tem work packages, WP3 to 6, which cover the injector, linac, undulator and beam dynamics respec-



tively. The expertise on the advances referred to above will flow into the design study through the tech-nical experts in these work packages and be combined in WP2.

We have the expectation to be able to pro-vide significant reductions in equipment specifications and consequently cost. To explore the potential advantage of X-band compared to lower frequencies a very pre-liminary exploration has been made. This study used an adapted version of the op-timization tools that have been developed for the re-baselining of CLIC15. The tools scan over a wide range of different structure designs. Those are retained that will yield a small breakdown rate and that ensure good beam stability. Based on the input power and pulse length for these structures, the number of RF power stations is determined. These stations consist of a modulator feeding a pair of klystrons. The power pulses from the klystrons are combined and compressed in time in a pulse compressor before they are distributed into the accelerating structures. Based on these results the total cost of the linac is estimated using a simplified cost model. The preliminary parameters of the optimum structure can be found in Table 1.2. The parameters for an RF unit can be found in Table 1.3 compared to a C-band unit of the SwissFEL.

Each RF units consists of a pair of 50MW klystrons, like the commercial units currently in use in the CLIC X-Boxes, operated at 45MW and

producing a 1.5 s long pulse. The pulses are combined and compressed to 150 ns in a pulse compressor, increasing its power by a factor 5.2. The final pulse then is distributed to feed 10 accelerating structures with 42MW (assuming a loss of 10% in the waveguide system).

In a direct comparison of this preliminary X-band design to the existing SwissFEL installation one can note that the energy gain per accelerating structure differs by only 10% but that the X-band structures are much shorter, roughly halving the linac length. The beam energy gain per klystron is slightly higher in the X-band case; while the peak power is similar to the C-band case. The initial RF pulse length is shorter, which results in a factor two lower energy consumption per beam pulse. This increase of the RF to beam efficiency will become most important if one aims at high repetition rate. There is also an im-portant cost saving in the part of the modulator cost associated with stored energy. In fact, comparing to S-band, X-band accelerating structures can obtain four times as high an accelerating gradient with the

15

CLIC and CLICdp collaborations, “Updated baseline for a staged Compact Linear Collider”, arXiv:1608.07537. CERN-2016-004

Parameter Value

Length L 0.75m

Phase advance per cell 120°

First iris aperture a1/λ 0.15

Last iris aperture a2/λ 0.1

First iris thickness d1 0.9mm

Last iris thickness d2 1.7mm

Fill time τ 150ns

Operational gradient G 65MV/m

Input power Pin 41.8MW

unit Opt. Swiss

Structures per RF unit 10 4

Klystrons per RF unit 2 1

Structure length m 0.75 1.98

Allowed gradient MV/m 80+

Operating gradient MV/m 65 27.5

Energy gain per RF unit MV 488 203

Klystron nominal power MW 50 50

Power in operation MW 45 40

Klystron pulse length μs 1.5 3

RF energy/pulse/GeV J 277 591

Table 1.2 Preliminary parameters of the optimum RF structure

Table 1.3 Preliminary parameters for an RF unit, compared against SwissFEL C-band technology.



same input RF pulse energy per unit length. Elaborating and improving the initial design optimisation is one of the major objectives of this proposal. It is expected that this effort will result in further perform-ance improvements.

1.3.2. Level in Technology Readiness spectrum

A large fraction of the technologies and advances that will be incorporated and integrated in the CompactLight design study are currently under development and test in a number of existing R&D programs that this work program will link to. Some activities are connected to operating facilities, such as the superconducting undulator developments at KIT (ANKA) or in test facilities, like the 100 MV/m accelerating gradient structures in the X-Box test stands of the CLIC linear-collider study. This means that this proposal is classified as TRL 5: “technology validated in relevant environment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies)”.

1.3.3. National and International research and innovation activities linked with this project

The large number of participant institutions and the broad range of expertise that they represent is evi-dence of the many national and international innovation activities that are linked to this project. A non-exhaustive overview, organized by work package, of linked research and innovation activities is given below. More details of three specific examples of ongoing research and innovation activities which will be linked through CompactLight are given in the sub-sections that follow: high-gradient structures from CLIC, commercial-based structure fabrication, and the CLARA FEL Test Facility. Further elaboration of the individual links can be found in the work package descriptions in section 3.1.

WP2 - Facility design and integration - UK FEL design study and the CLARA FEL Test Facility at Daresbury - Turkish FEL design study at University of Ankara - EuSPARC FEL design study at SPARC_LAB - Operation of FERMI and energy upgrade study - CLIC collaboration, design and test facilities - SwissFEL operation and upgrade studies - XFEL facilities at SINAP, construction, operation and design studies - Operation of ThomX and design of new high-gradient linac PRAE

WP3 – Gun and Injector - Low emittance 100 kV gun development at Eindhoven - High-gradient S-band RF gun construction and extension to other

frequencies at SPARC_LAB and CNRS - Development of a multicell RF gun with new brazing techniques at CNRS

WP4 – RF Systems - High-gradient accelerating structures in the CLIC study - High-efficiency klystron development at CERN for FCC and CLIC - Deflector cavity and phase stabilization at University of Lancaster - High-gradient test area at IFIC - Commercial structure supply by VDL ETG - High-gradient accelerating structures in collaboration between

CNRS and industrial partner

WP5 – Undulators and light production - Advanced undulator development at ENEA and INFN - Superconducting and RF undulator developments at the Cockcroft Institute



- Commercial supply of advanced undulators by Kyma - Advanced superconducting undulator development at KIT - Advanced undulator development at SwissFEL

WP6 – Beam dynamics and Start to End Modelling - Ankara - CLIC - CLARA - SwissFEL - EuSPARC - FERMI

Experience with X-band technology within the CLIC Study The performance requirements for the main linac of CLIC, a TeV-range electron-positron collider, are quite demanding16. The most important parameters are an accelerating gradient of 100 MV/m, low breakdown rate, micron-tolerance alignment and a high RF-to-beam efficiency (around 30%). A substantial research and development program has been carried out in order to establish the design process, manufacturing technology and operational algorithms for the accelerating structures of the CLIC main linacs. The goal of the program has been to build and operate prototypes at high-gradient and low-breakdown rate. An important milestone has now been passed with the successful high-gradient operation of numerous X-band accelerating structure prototypes at gradients above 100 MV/m. Fig. 1.3 shows a photograph of such a structure and Fig. 1.4 shows the summary of gradients various prototypes have achieved. The accumulated know-how and achievements from the CLIC study can now be used in other applications, most notably for compact X-ray FELs, but also hadron therapy linacs for cancer treatment. For example, a 0.38 v/c phase velocity structure designed for proton acceleration is currently under test with an expected gradient of 50 MV/m.

In the case of the XFEL, the subject of this proposal, there is a performance margin in accelerating gradi-ent compared to the 100 MV/m which has already been achieved for CLIC. The initial studies referred to in the introduction to this document, to determine the optimum accelerating gradient for an X-band FEL when also considering investment cost and power consumption, indicate an optimum gradient in the range of 70 MV/m. Interestingly this is close to the optimum gradient for an initial 380 GeV energy stage of CLIC. Many structure parameters are similar in XFEL structures and 380 GeV CLIC structures and these similarities can be exploited in prototype validation in the timescale of this proposed work program.

16

M. Aicheler et. al., "A Multi-TeV Linear Collider Based on CLIC Technology,” CERN 2012-007.

Figure 1.4: T24 X-band accelerating structure. This structure achieved the 120 MV/m point in Fig. 2



In addition, the CLIC study is investigating the potential of concepts that may result in significantly re-duced fabrication cost including vacuum brazing, building structures from halves and using hard copper. CLIC and XFEL efforts are highly synergetic in the area of structure fabrication and working towards both simultaneously will be extremely efficient.

Figure 1.5: Summary of performances achieved in tests of prototypes in the CLIC XBoxes. The results show that gradients much higher than those in existing XFEL linacs are feasible.

The CLIC study also has important test infrastructure which can be exploited for this work program. X-band accelerating structures have been tested at klystron-based test stands at SLAC, KEK and CERN. A photograph of one of the test stands at CERN is shown in Fig. 1.6. The baseline power-production for CLIC is actually based on a two-beam scheme; however the klystron-based test stands at CERN have been constructed recently in order to expand testing capacity. The full complement of three test stands, XBox1 to 3, is now operational.

Importantly, the klystron-based test stands also have all essential features in common with RF power units needed for an X-band XFEL. This includes the overall layout, klystrons, modulators, pulse compres-sors, waveguide components and distribution, low-level RF and operational algorithms. Because of the similarities, the hardware that has been developed and the operational experience gained can be di-rectly applied to XFELs. The test stands can be reasonably easily re-configured as X-band XFEL linac units. The three test stands at CERN and the test stand at KEK are operating 24/7 as the accelerating structure development program pursues the next phase of the development program which focuses on increasing operational experience, investigating manufacturing yield and optimising the fabrication process.

Members of the CLIC study are driving the development of significantly higher efficiency klystrons than the state-of-the-art. An X-band klystron study is of direct relevance for CompactLight. An RF system op-timized for a higher klystron efficiency brings important cost savings, not just through reduced electrical consumption but even more from a corresponding scaling back of the performance needed from the modulator, in both voltage and stored energy.

Finally the CLEAR facility has been recently approved by CERN management. Power from the XBox-1 test stand will be fed to CLEAR allowing beam based tests of high-gradient structures. This will provide an excellent test bed to carry out measurements and test of for example RF-to-beam synchronization in an accelerator environment.



Figure 1.6: Photograph of the equip-ment of an X-band high-gradient test stand at CERN. This test stand, XBox-3, is based on combined low-power klystron modulator unit capable of running at up to 400 Hz.

Industrialisation of X-band Accelerator Structures The success of the CompactLight Design Study will create new opportunities for European industry as well. The project will most probably increase the demand for X-band components. As a result this in-creased demand will result in lower cost and higher and more consistent quality.

We believe that the benefits for European industry can be split into 3 major groups:

(1) Market in FEL construction and industrial use of XFELs: A comprehensive design of an XFEL facil-ity with significantly lower cost will increase the likelihood that a broader base of institutes will be able to obtain funding for XFEL construction. In particular with the maturing of FEL technol-ogy, it is believed that these sources are likely to become much more common and will serve not only the community of scientific institutes but also industrial demands for XFEL sources. This is the main benefit over the existing C and S-band technology designs – the potential for spin-off to industrial applications is expected to be considerably higher.

(2) Business from spin-offs: X-band structures are not limited to large FEL projects only. There is a huge potential for high gradient structures in various accelerator applications as the high gra-

dient allows a reduced size and lower cost of operation of the accelerator. For example accelerator applications such as proton therapy, radiology, security, and X-ray analysis will benefit directly. The proliferation of proton therapy at the moment is severely limited because of high investment costs and the overall facility size. This medical application could exploit the expanding high-gradient X-band linac market. Already one company is investigating potential here. As applications and demand grow this will in turn increase the demand for high precision parts and for fully assembled turn-key accelerator structures and RF systems.

(3) Maintain and increase competences: Knowledge gained in the fabrication and subsequent commissioning of a technically challenging project (such as an XFEL) can be used by industry for other customers, even outside the accelerator/FEL community. Precision machining for example remains a technology area, which is continuously improving accuracy boundaries. Industries such as semiconductor equipment and analysis equipment (e.g. transmission electron microscopes) immediately benefit from the ability to machine at tighter tolerances.

Obviously companies (such as VDL, a member of this consortium) that are already related to the accel-erator business due to an existing key competence (e.g. very precise machining in relation with X-band structures, in the case of VDL) already have a head start that puts them in front of newly rising players in



the market. A summary of VDL’s view of the structure of the normal conducting accelerator market is shown in figure 1.7. In addition the whole European industrial sector will benefit from CompactLight, once the X-band-based FEL is demonstrated and new FEL projects and applications are being an-nounced. Growing and emerging markets will push industrial activity.

Figure 1.7: Summary of the view of the normal conducting accelerator market from the participating industrial partner VDL ETG. High-gradient and X-band markets are shown in green.

CLARA FEL Test Facility Many European institutes and universities are very active in R&D on existing and future FELs. There is already a high degree of collaboration and coordination amongst these groups and this proposal will build on this existing community strength. A clear example of the degree of collaboration is exemplified by the FELs of Europe consortium (formerly EuroFEL), which contains FEL scientists and designers from across all of the major European projects. Within this consortium there are several Expert Groups who focus on specific FEL issues (e.g. seeding, diagnostics, etc.) in order to share ideas, coordinate efforts and carry out joint experiments on existing facilities.

The current operational FEL user facilities within Europe, FLASH at DESY and FERMI, have dedicated time for FEL improvements and optimisation. Specific examples of recent FEL R&D include external seeding experiments, two-colour output generation, and higher harmonic generation. There is also a dedicated FEL test facility within Europe, SPARC at INFN Frascati, which, since it is not a science user facility, is able to dedicate more time to FEL R&D. Particular recent successes of this facility include demonstration of ultra-short photon pulse output and multi pulse output. A new FEL test facility, CLARA, is now being as-sembled at STFC Daresbury Laboratory in the UK. This facility is specifically targeted at new FEL con-cepts, such as HB-SASE, Mode-Locking, and multi-colour, which will generate narrower bandwidths, shorter pulses and multi wavelength output – all with the aim of increasing the science reach of future FELs such as UK XFEL. CLARA is an excellent candidate for the first demonstration of an X-band acceler-



ating structure driving an electron beam for an operational FEL and this is currently assumed by the project to happen following the successful conclusion of this Design Study.

1.3.4. Overall approach and methodology

The Project is subdivided into seven interlinking Work Packages (WPs) as shown schematically in Fig. 3.1. WP1 provides the overall management and coordination of the project. The overall design process will be carried out by WP2. WPs 3 to 6 carry out the designs of specific technical systems and provide the input into WP2 necessary for the overall design and optimization, WP7 addresses the strategic and user liaison issues related with the objectives of CompactLight.

Further details on the functions of the seven Work Packages are presented below.

WP1: Project Management and Coordination WP1 is the overall management of the CompactLight Design Study and will ensure timely achievement of project results through technical and administrative management. It will be led by the Project Coordi-nator and will be focused on the effective management and coordination of all the WPs and deliver-ables, the budget and the project implementation plans.

WP1 duties also include:

Coordination of all the partners and conflict resolution.

Organisation of periodic meetings and workshops.

Contacts with the Advisory and Executive boards.

Preparation and supervision of annual cost claims, audit certificates submitted by all project beneficiaries and EC reporting.

Preparation of documents for all beneficiaries.

Issuing and filling of financial records.

Identify risks and foresee contingencies at WP level, inform the Project Coordination Office in a timely manner, and propose corrective actions.

Dissemination of information, including the activities for the Open Research Data Pilot.

WP2: FEL Science Requirements and Facility Design The objective of WP2 is to provide the conceptual design of the FEL facility. It will therefore select the performance specification for the FEL based on scientific requirements. It will identify and chose the most appropriate technical solutions considering cost, technical risk and performance in consultation with the technical WPs 3 to 6.

This WP will require, at all stages of the design, a close interaction between FEL scientists (WP7), FEL designers (WP5), accelerator and RF experts (WPs 3, 4, and 6). For this purpose, regular meetings at the participants’ laboratories, or through the internet, will be organized to present and discuss the design work.

WP2 will coordinate and take care of:

The Project Office.

The Design Study authors.

The Hard X-ray FEL Facility Conceptual Design Report.

Machine parameters, costs and implementation plans.

It will also take care of industry relations and involvement.

The deliverables of WP2 are:

D2.1: A document summarising the requests from the users and defining the performance specifications for the FEL.



D2.2: Report summarizing the FEL design with accelerator and undulator requirements.

D2.3: The conceptual design report for a Hard X-ray FEL facility, with options for

Soft X-ray FEL

Compton Source

Upgrade of existing facilities.

WP3: Gun, injectors, and diagnostics The objective of WP3 is the qualification and assessment of advanced gun and injector designs for CompactLight. Three options will be considered. An innovative full-X-band solution, inclusive of a higher-harmonic linearization in the K band of frequencies, will be developed. This goal aims to further recent achievements in the design of X-band guns and to explore the feasibility of RF components at unprece-dented frequencies such as the K band. Parallel to this, two other options will be studied advancing the recent progresses in high-gradient acceleration at lower frequencies, in the S and the C bands, where gradients two or three times the state of the art have been achieved. Phase-space linearisers, and op-tions for compact magnetic chicanes to achieve longitudinal bunch compression, will be studied for each of these three designs. Advanced, high-precision, diagnostics for fast transverse and longitudinal bunch measurements will be also reviewed by this workpackage.

The deliverables of this WP are:

D3.1: Preliminary assessments and evaluations of the optimum e-gun and injector solution for the CompactLight design.

D3.2: A review report on the bunch compression techniques and phase space linearization.

D3.3: Design of the injector diagnostics/beam manipulations.

D3.4: Design of the CompactLight e-gun and injector, with phase space linearizer.

WP4: RF systems The primary objective of WP4 is to define the RF system for the linac of the XFEL in the main and sub-design variants. The RF system for the linac includes the main high-power infrastructure such as modula-

tor, klystron, pulse compressor and waveguide network, the accelerating structures and the low-level RF system and preamplifiers. Additionally, the WP will take responsibility for defining specialized RF hard-ware in other systems, for example for an eventual 36 GHz lineariser system in the injector and deflec-tors for longitudinal profile measurement systems.

A key goal will be to define a standardized RF unit which can be used in all main and sub-design variants. We believe that a making a standardized design available can simplify the preparation of future con-struction projects, provide longer term cost savings by stimulating and optimizing the industrialization of linac hardware and make future facilities more reliable. A standardized design can significantly improve the chances of success of future projects and hence increase the impact of this design study.

WP4 tasks are:

Task 4.1: Hardware development and prototype testing. This includes active contact and coordination with ongoing projects including CLIC, the CLEAR facility and X-band systems under development for deflectors in existing XFEL facilities to incorporate the latest developments there.

Task 4.2: Industrialization and cost reduction. Industrialization will cover the high-power RF sys-tem, klystrons, modulators, pulse compressor and waveguide network, as well as the tight-toler-ance, high-gradient accelerating structures.

Task 4.3: Development of the design and costing tools needed to provide input for the global optimization done in WP2. This will be done in collaboration with experts from existing facilities as well as the ongoing effort to optimize the CLIC klystron-based initial 380 GeV energy stage.



WP4 deliverables are:

D4.1: A parameterized performance and cost model of the RF unit to be used by WP2 for the facility optimization. The model will be established in computer code and described in a report.

D4.2: A design report of the optimized RF unit. Based on the parameters emerging from the facil-ity optimization, the design of the RF unit will be established at the component level and de-scribed in a report.

D4.3: A report on the design and fabrication procedure, optimized for series industrial produc-tion, of the accelerating structure that is an important cost driver for the facility.

WP5: Undulators and light production Starting from the state of the art undulators, WP5 will explore the future developments in this strategic field for the Light Sources. Comparative studies will be performed of “ambitious undulators” that are based on different technologies and expected to be available on a time scale of 4-5 years. These will include:

novel short period undulators, including cryogenic permanent magnets

superconducting undulators specifically tailored to FELs

and more exotic devices such as:

RF-microwave undulators

laser electromagnetic wave undulators.

Systematic and comparative assessments will be made taking into account integrated facility perform-ance. In close collaboration with WP6, the assessments will be based on studies of the transport line, matching the undulators section to the characteristics of the accelerated beam. Emphasis will be given to the most efficient preservation of the beam quality. The results of WP5 will provide input to WP2, supporting and exploring the possibilities for very compact photon sources. Particular attention will be

given to superconducting undulators in which the field amplitude can be adjusted along the undulator (equivalent to the tapering of permanent magnet undulators), enhanced-bandwidth FEL radiation and super-radiant light sources at short wavelengths. Such schemes, which have not been investigated so far, could significantly increase the capabilities of future compact light sources.

The deliverable of the WP is: • D5.1: A document comparing the different technologies for the undulator (input for WP2). • D5.2: Conceptual Design Report of the undulator.

WP6: Beam dynamics and start to end modelling The main objective of WP6 is to provide key parameters and performance estimates of the overall facil-ity. This serves as input to WP2 to elaborate the overall facility design. It is also the basis for technology choices for critical components and for developing detailed designs of subsystems and components in-cluding: accelerating structures, undulators, power sources, modulators, pulse compressors, waveguide network, instrumentation and alignment system. WP6 is closely linked to WP2, WP3, WP4 and WP5.

To achieve its objective WP6 will carry out integrated performance studies of the facility. These include start to end simulations, which cover the beam transport from the cathode to the FEL exit, including Space Charge effects, Coherent Synchrotron Radiation in magnetic compressors, Wake Field effects in the X-band linac and FEL performances.

Mechanical tolerance studies will be also performed. These will also cover beam-based alignment and tuning methods that can relax tolerances. This is of particular importance, as high frequency accelera-tion technology tends to give tighter tolerances than lower frequency.



WP6 will develop consistent tools for modelling the machine, as the basis for the final integrated per-formance studies.

The deliverables of WP6 are:

D6.1: A set of tools to evaluate the facility performance.

D6.2: A performance prediction of the facility including the key tolerances and mitigation strate-gies to deal with imperfections.

WP7: Global integration with new Research Infrastructures WP7 will address strategic issues related to the objectives of CompactLight, namely the impact and benefits to the XFEL communities, in both the public and private sectors, at the scientific and technical level. The results of this work package will be reports that funding agencies and policy makers can use in the decision-making process for the realisation of new research infrastructures or the upgrade of exist-ing facilities. The work will be split into three activities. The first will address the global integration of X-band technology for new accelerator-based research Infrastructures at both the European level and worldwide. The present and future requirements from the user community will be taken into account and results of the work package will show how the specific nature of X-band technology will address these requirements. The second activity will address the services that can be provided to the community at a global level based on the exploitation of the new technology. The ability of the new technology to provide a service to the community that goes beyond the initial requirements as well as future upgrade paths will be explored. The third activity will cover the costs and estimated budgets required for the construction and operation of these facilities. Comparison of costs will be made with conventional tech-nology and will take into account already committed investments (where applicable).

1.4. Innovation potential of FELs

FELs are an important novel tool for a wide range of scientific and technological fields and have an im-portant innovation potential. However, currently there are few FELs, in particular in Europe. This is a direct consequence result of their high cost and complexity, which results that only mayor accelerator laboratories are able to construct and operate them. We aspire to make an important step to improve this situation by making FELs more affordable.

To this end we will provide a conceptual design of an FEL with significantly reduced cost, power con-sumption and compactness. By providing a common conceptual design we also remove a large part of the complexity of proposing an FEL project and promote the availability of required technology. We want to achieve these goals by:

Adapting X-band acceleration technology, developed at CERN for CLIC, to make it available for FELs. This includes accelerating structures, pulse compressors, klystrons and low-level RF.

Choosing the optimum emerging undulator technology and optimising it for use in an FEL.

Overcoming the tight tolerances that arise from the specific technology choices by adopting beam-based tuning and correction methods to the FEL that have been devised for large colliders.

Identifying the optimum technology for the injectors.

Optimising the overall design and cost trade-offs between different parts of the facility.

Catalysing the development of standardized hardware solutions and fostering the availability of components supplied by European industry.

The long-term goal is to provide a degree of standardization that FELs should become facilities that can be provided by industry.



1.4.1. Innovation potential of FELs

X-ray Free Electron Lasers can generate X-ray pulses of a hundred or a thousand times shorter duration than those from a synchrotron whilst being a billion times brighter. The transformational impact of these light sources on science has already become apparent with the high profile and diverse scientific outputs already achieved by LCLS in Stanford since its start of operation seven years ago.

X-ray FELs provide new science and technology capability. It has emerged in the last seven years as the most important development in X-ray light sources in 40 years. The unique capabilities of these sources, to provide laser-like coherent X-rays of exceptional brightness and very short pulse duration, are already proving to be at the cutting edge of science. These light sources allow us for the first time to see inside matter and capture the nanoscopic motions that determine macroscopic properties and function.

The immediate impact of these facilities on science and technology is likely to be highest in the following broad areas:

Structural Dynamics The ability to probe structure and dynamics at the fundamental scale (sub-nm/sub-fs) provided by X-ray FELs will have impact on many areas including: basic energy sciences (e.g. light-to energy conversion technology), catalysis, research into strongly correlated systems (e.g. high Tc superconductors), nanotechnology devices (for photonic and analytical applications), structure of matter under extreme conditions (e.g. strongly coupled plasmas). This potential impact is reflected in major new investment into groups developing this science in the USA (SLAC) and Europe (CFEL and the Max-Planck Institute for Structure and Dynamics of Materials MPSD).

Nanoscale Imaging Science X-ray FELs, due to their coherence, brightness and temporal structure, permit new avenues for imaging, for example coherent diffraction imaging (CDI). CDI using X-ray FELs has the potential to overcome the technical impasse encountered for imaging non-periodic structures and non-crystallisable proteins. Re-cently proof-of-concept results were reported from the LCLS facility in single -hot imaging of biological systems and structure determination of light harvesting proteins in a nanocrystalline form. These are first steps that may lead to radical advances in the ability to image the functioning of sub-cellular struc-tures in live biological systems. Moreover the potential to determine protein structure in samples that cannot be crystallized or only yield tiny nanocrystals is enabled by these facilities. A strong international effort is underway in this imaging technology led by groups in both Europe and the USA. These broad themes illustrate only some of the possibilities currently being opened by X-ray FELs. In the course of the next ten years there will certainly be major breakthroughs not only in these areas, but no doubt in many others. It is highly likely that there will be a significant impact on future energy technology based on advanced chemical-, bio- and nano-technologies, catalysis, drug discovery, biomedical imaging, high energy density plasma science, etc.

1.4.2. Beyond the state-of-the-art FEL design

Existing X-ray free electron lasers and those currently under construction are driven by linacs which all have gradients below 40 MV/m. Some examples of current facilities with the highest gradient linacs in-clude:

Table 1.4: Examples of current X-ray free electron lasers with the highest gradient linacs

European XFEL (Germany) 24 MV/m Superconducting L-band

Swiss FEL (Switzerland) 28 MV/m Normal-conducting C-band

SACLA (Japan) 35 MV/m Normal-conducting C-band



During the period when these facilities have been designed and built, the CLIC study of a TeV-range high-energy physics collider has managed to push the demonstrated gradient in prototype accelerating structures up to 120 MV/m. This achievement has been brought about through combined developments in fabrication technology, insights into material science and radio-frequency design for high-gradients and extensive operational experience with high-power X-band RF systems. A major objective of this de-sign study is to transfer the high-gradient technology developed for CLIC to a new generation of more compact, and ultimately less expensive, FELs with gradients two to three times that of the current generation facilities.

A consequence of the CLIC high-gradient RF development program has been to provide a stimulus to the development of high-power X-band hardware for use in accelerators. For example, the CLIC study has made the first purchases of commercial multi-MW (6 and 50) X-band klystrons and developed a wide range of high-power waveguide components. Normal-conducting electron linacs have for many decades primarily been operating at S-band and this has been the choice for a number of X-ray FELs such as the LCLS (USA) and the PAL-XFEL project (South Korea). The two most recent normal-conducting X-ray FEL facilities, SACLA and SwissFEL, have both chosen to adopt the higher frequency C-band technology. This decision to increase frequency has been made in order to optimise the facilities in terms of gradient, power consumption and cost. This design study seeks to continue this broad evolution in accelerator technology, focusing on X-ray FELs, to the higher frequency X-band technology.

A similar evolution in accelerator technology has taken place in undulator technology for FELs. LCLS started with a conventional permanent magnet undulator system, the more recent facilities (SACLA and SwissFEL) have made use of in-vacuum permanent magnet undulators with a subsequent reduction in electron beam energy from 14.7 GeV (LCLS) to 8.0 GeV (SACLA) and now 5.8 GeV (SwissFEL). We aim to extend this evolution in undulator technology through the application of cryogenic permanent magnet or superconducting magnet technologies. Both of these have been demonstrated on storage ring light sources and there is a clear path for CompactLight to be a sub-5 GeV, 0.1 nm wavelength, XFEL when an FEL-optimised superconducting undulator is developed as part of our design study.

2. IMPACT

2.1. Expected impact

The “STRATEGY REPORT ON RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURES”, Roadmap 2016, asserts: “SR facilities are very powerful attractors and contribute to European scientific and industrial competitiveness”17. This document identifies the new features and conclusions of the ESFRI Roadmap 2016, and presents an analysis of the impact of research infrastructures on structuring the European Research Area as well as the global research scene and of the overall contribution to European competitiveness. It states: “Free Electron Laser sources provide a substantially novel way to probe matter and have very high, largely unexplored, potential for science and innovation”.

The facility subject of this design study aims at having the same scientific potential of the facilities con-sidered for the ESFRI roadmap, but it can also pave the way for facilities with a significantly smaller scale in terms of footprint and complexity. We aim at making X-ray FELs small and inexpensive enough to be within national and even university scale, yet with uncompromised scientific potential.

17

http://www.esfri.eu/sites/default/files/20160308_ROADMAP_single_page_LIGHT.pdf


http://www.esfri.eu/sites/default/files/20160308_ROADMAP_single_page_LIGHT.pdf


Table 2.1: International landscape of operating VUV and X-ray FELs

The international landscape of operating VUV and X-ray FELs also confirms the importance given to such facilities worldwide, as shown in Table 2.1 above.

This table shows that in the United States and Asia three facilities (SACLA, LCLS, and PAL-XFEL) already deliver low-repetition rate hard X-rays of the order of 10 keV or more, and one is under construction (LCLS-II). The two operational XFELs in Europe are FERMI and FLASH, which produce soft X-rays well be-low 1 keV. Two facilities within Europe, EuroXFEL and SwissFEL, will generate higher photon energies and are now being commissioned.

The currently operating facilities are significantly oversubscribed and this situation is expected to con-tinue even after the new facilities are fully online. Official statistics provided by LCLS, for example, show that only 20% of the proposed experiments were given beam time18. At FERMI little more than 30% of the proposed experiments can currently be scheduled, and a similar situation exists at FLASH. This shows that the increasing demand of synchrotron light from a very large variety of sciences is still un-matched by the limited number of available facilities. CompactLight aims to promote the spread of na-tional and international research infrastructures for photon science, which are affordable, compact, and energy efficient, to help satisfy this large demand.

This design study addresses the key points that can make FELs affordable for smaller countries or universities. These points are also the direct facility-level impacts, which this study will provide:

Cost - The total facility construction and operating costs must be compatible with in the budget

available in a national laboratory or university.

Power consumption - The efficiency of the facility must be high to minimise the power consump-

tion, in particular if one aims at a high repetition rate.

Complexity - The design and optimization requires a broad range of expertise, beyond that avail-able in the target national and university-scale facilities. FELs are complex machines to operate but

much more complex to design and optimise.

18 W. Schlotter, “Future Science Opportunities Enabled by X-ray Free Electron Lasers”, https://indico.cern.ch/event/510088


https://indico.cern.ch/event/510088


Footprint - Physical space is often limited if the facility is to be integrated with existing national and university laboratories.

We believe these gains, and hence impacts, can be found in using advances in high-gradient X- band linac technology, improved light generation with advanced undulators (which permits to reduce the beam energy), and advances in the injectors. This will yield an improvement in the cost, power con-sumption and compactness of the facility.

The X-band technology allows RF power to be more efficiently transferred to the beam, reducing the power consumption of the linac significantly. Increased efficiency will also decrease the cost of the facil-ity. For example, since less energy needs to be stored in the modulators, which are an important cost-driver, their specifications can be relaxed. The high gradient of the X-band acceleration technology allows for a shorter linac. This will increase the compactness of the facility and reduce its cost.

The optimisation of the injectors will allow easing the beam dynamics requirements on the linac, as they are key to the FEL performance.

Improved instrumentation will allow the performance of the FEL to be improved and is key in enabling the use of high frequency acceleration technology, which has higher demands on the control of the beam quality.

Beam dynamics studies of the integrated performance will ensure an optimum interplay of the different parts of the FEL. They will also address the tolerances against imperfections of the components. These tend to be tighter at X-band than at lower frequencies, e.g. the accelerating structures will generate larger unwanted wakefields. The application to FELs of advanced beam- based alignment and tuning methods devised for large-scale colliders will be important to improve robustness against imperfections thus enabling the use of high frequency technology.

The optimization of the design of an FEL facility is a major challenge, since a broad spectrum of world-level expertise is required. We believe that we have assembled a team of European and world leading expertise. Most of the technologies are on the forefront of what can be achieved yet feasible for a practical facility on the time-scale of this design study.

A significant added value of this proposal is that is provides smaller institutes the collective expertise normally available only in large accelerator institutes. Universities thus have to rely on outside expertise to develop a conceptual design of an FEL and are not usually well placed to form a large multi-disciplinary collaboration. This design study is proposing to develop such a conceptual design and the tools that are required to adjust this design on the specific needs of a given project.

Thus an important aspect of the impact of this study is the coordinated flow of expertise from Europe’s larger research institutions to those smaller ones with ambitions to engage in cutting-edge photon science.

2.1.1. Technology areas benefiting from the project

CompactLight has as primary design objective a compact hard X-ray FEL facility design, with options for a soft X-rays and for a Compton source, and targets the major technology areas important for an XFEL: the gun and the injectors (WP3), beam acceleration and RF production (WP4), and undulators and photon production (WP5). Additionally: technologies for compact, high-precision, diagnostics will also be reviewed and studied (WP3). Each of these R&D areas has a large potential for application that go well beyond CompactLight itself.

X-band technology is now mature and ready for adoption in user facilties. On the photon side, the de-velopment of new concepts for light production, including short-length undulators, would also benefit a



large number of existing and new FEL facilities. This is why we consider CompactLight a proposal with strong impact, addressing several emerging and high-priority areas of the scientific research environment.

Beam diagnostics During the last years, significant R&D has been carried out in the area of X-band based beam diag-nostics. X-band systems can be smaller and more have higher precision than conventional S-band based diagnostics. For example, the sensitivity of deflecting cavities commonly used to impart a longitudinal-position-dependent transverse velocity to electron bunches, in order to measure bunch lengths, is linearly dependent on the frequency and gradient. Hence X-band structures provide more than four times the sensitivity of S-band structures. This higher sensitivity is likely to be required due to the shorter bunch of an advanced FEL. High-precision deflectors could also be placed after the FEL in order to image microbunching created by the FEL, providing a useful diagnostic tool also for existing FELs.

Dissemination: Progress in X-band diagnostics could impact a number of high-brightness, low-emittance accelerators in Europe and worldwide. Immediate applications include existing projects like SwissFEL, CLARA, and EuSPARC, where the inclusion of high-precision longitudinal diagnostics and compact transverse

deflecting cavities can be envisaged. KIT, partner of this consortium, sees ultra-short bunch diagnostics both direct and indirect (fast multi- frequency THz spectroscopy) as a potential tools also for upgrades of Euro-XFEL and, at the other extreme of CompactLight sources, for the EuPRAXIA project.

Injector guns Investigation into high-performance sources able to deliver high brightness, high repetition rate electron beams for the generation of high-flux, highly coherent radiation and integration with CompactLight are the main objectives of CompactLight’s WP3. Currently, electron sources used in XFELs are based on three RF technologies: 1.3 GHz, 24 MV/m, superconducting L-Band; 2.86 GHz, 17 MV/m, room-tempera-ture S-Band; and 5.7 GHz, 35 MV/m, room temperature C-Band at SACLA and SwissFEL19. Recent developments in high-gradient acceleration in S- and in C- bands, where accelerating voltages as high as 55 MV/m in S band have been achieved, are showing the way to a new generation of high-gradient S-band and C- band injector guns. Injectors based on high-gradient X-band, possibly equipped with a Ka-band linearizer, would certainly represent a leap forward toward very compact high-brilliance injectors.

Enabling a new generation of compact high-brightness electron sources will impact the whole electron accelerator-based science community, in particular photon sciences, where electron beams drive a variety of tools such as FELs, electron scattering experiments, imaging and radiation therapy.

Dissemination: Compact high-gradient injectors directly impact various projects besides CompactLight: for example, PRAE and Thom-X, which use S-band injectors; EuSPARC which considers the use of a compact RF photo injector based on C-band technology; and ALBA-CELLS which considers an X-band injector gun for a future upgrade of ALBA-CELLS.

X-band Linac RF components As the feasibility of high-gradient X-band accelerator technology has been proven, the manufacturing of X-band structures is ready to move from individual prototypes to high volume production. Industrializa-tion of X-band components is becoming crucial for facilities and market to grow together. Efficient RF power sources also need to be developed, integrated and industrialized from this perspective. One of the main objectives of CompactLight is the definition of a standard unit for X-band based accelerators, a

19

C. Limborg-Deprey, “Achieved Performance of an All X-band Photo-Injector”, IPAC2016, Busan, Korea



standardized module inclusive of RF source with optimized pulse compressor, RF distribution network, accelerating structures equipped with magnetic elements and diagnostics. This standard unit will provide a template for industrial involvement.

CompactLight catalyses the efforts of many key players in the European scene of X-band R&D, with evidence in the large number of participants in this proposal, and aims at radically impact this important technological area.

Dissemination: The development and the industrialization of an X-band linac would greatly impact the worldwide accelerator community. For example, linacs are commonly used for radiotherapy and for X-ray screening of cargo. It is likely that developments in developing a compact X-band light source will have knock-on effects in these applications through maturity of the technology and training of staff/students. Indeed many of the participants are involved in research in these areas.

There has been recent interest in using RF linacs for proton therapy and for very high electron energy therapy. Both these applications will require a higher gradient that currently available to make the respective linacs fit in a suitable space within a hospital. At present S and C band are considered for proton therapy but a more mature X-band technology may have additional benefits and may make possible high-energy electron therapy.

Linacs are often used also for cargo screening, mounted on a truck with a lift or on a robotic arm, surrounded by lead shielding. Reduction in linac diameter and length, achievable with X-band components, could provide a significant reduction on the shielding weight allowing better mobility on the arm and reduce the rear axle weight. While the idea of such X-band linacs already exists, the maturity of the technology has been a concern with large-scale adoption of the technology at present.

Novel undulator technologies Parallel to the development of compact X-band accelerator technologies, CompactLight will push the generation of coherent light beyond the current state-of-the-art, and develop innovative new technolo-gies for efficient light generation that will lead to the next-generation of compact coherent light facilities, including permanent magnet, or super-conducting undulators. The potential for improving the photon generation process and the FEL operation is a rapidly developing field of research: achieving shorter saturation lengths, shaping the pulses in time and in spectrum domain, two-colour generation, seeding and harmonic lasing are some of the directions being explored.

CompactLight gathers European worldwide experts and industries in the field of undulator design and production, with the goal of designing the next generation of undulators: with shorter period, larger K- values, and larger gap for a better beam transport with less risk for particle losses within the undulator.

Dissemination: Shorter saturation lengths lead to shorter undulators, reducing the footprint of any FEL facility. This in turn leads to potential cost reductions. Technological developments like permanent-magnet undulators, and superconducting undulators, lowering the required electron beam energy to lase, will impact the performance and the design of any existing, and future, FELs worldwide.

2.1.2. Scientific areas benefiting from the project

Photon-based sciences The CompactLight design study will deliver a Conceptual Design Report for a new generation of compact hard X-ray FEL facilities, with options for table top Compton sources, and for compact soft X-ray FEL facilities. All photon sciences making use of these photon ranges will therefore benefit from CompactLight. The user community will spread across a multitude of scientific and engineering



disciplines including materials science, condensed-matter physics, atomic and molecular physics, life science and medicine, chemistry, and environmental sciences.

Several institutes, partners of CompactLight, have expressed their interest in building a local facility based on one of the three options proposed by CompactLight. Other institutes see the potential for up-grades of existing facilities, where X-band acceleration, X-band diagnostics, and novel undulators tech-nologies will allow cost- and energy- effective upgrades. Details are given in the Excellence section of this proposal but in essence, there is an enormous breadth of research, across all disciplines, which will be enabled by access to XFELs.

The great interest for the CompactLight design study is further highlighted by the Letter of Support, which we received from the European collaboration ‘FELs of Europe’ (https://www.fels-of-europe.eu/). The letter is attached at the end of this section.

Basic sciences Linear Accelerators based on high gradient X-band RF structures, and in particular those incorporating X-band photo-injectors, have the potential for high brightness due to superior performances in the achievable peak-accelerating field. The capability to achieve very high phase space densities is of para-mount relevance not only to drive X-ray Free Electron Lasers, but also to maximise the luminosity of electron-photon colliders. This would allow generating MeV-class photon beams with spectral densities above 104 photons/s·eV, a reasonable target for basic science: for example, Nuclear Resonance Fluores-cence experiments20. Another class of fundamental experiments in QED and High Energy Physics in general, which could greatly benefit from the availability of X-band linacs, are those based on electron-photon and photon-photon collisions.

Photon-photon scattering and Breit-Wheeler reactions (creation of electron-positron pairs from the collision of two photons) have been predicted long ago but never experimentally observed so far. Since their Feynman diagrams are linked to the basic nature of quantum vacuum. These reactions are direct probe of its nature and can give tremendous insights to cosmological open problems, like for example the transparency of the universe.

2.1.3. Industrial areas benefiting from the project

Manufacturing of X-band components Besides VDL ETG, partner of this consortium, several companies showed an interest in CompactLight: e.g. JEMA, making solid-state modulators, and http://www.jemaenergy.com/en/, DMP, an ultra-high-precision machining firm: http://lk.kompass.com/c/desarrollos-mecanicos-de-precision-s-l-dmp/es1073641/. The latter are already manufacturing CLIC structure prototypes and X-band components; they are interested in developing their capability of manufacturing and assembling X-band components on an industrial base, following the specifications defined by CompactLight for a standard X-band unit as described in the previous sections of this proposal.

Production of Undulators In the framework of CompactLight, given the participation of leading institutes in the domain of undulators R&D, such as KIT and ENEA, our industrial partner Kyma anticipates a tremendous potential for the development of new and revolutionary concepts of insertion devices: a generation of new un-dulators with much shorter period than the traditional ones.

20

L. Serafini et al., ELI-NP-GBS TDR, http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.3669


https://www.fels-of-europe.eu/

http://www.jemaenergy.com/en/

http://lk.kompass.com/c/desarrollos-mecanicos-de-precision-s-l-dmp/es1073641/

http://lk.kompass.com/c/desarrollos-mecanicos-de-precision-s-l-dmp/es1073641/

http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.3669


The impact on the market of shorter, lighter, and possibly less expensive equipment could be large, not only as a key component of an X-band technology-based accelerator, but also for the compact particle accelerators in general. If new and innovative compact undulators become available on the market as standard and industrial products, hospitals, medical centres, small laboratories, universities, and many other entities could afford and manage their own compact insertion device-based facilities

2.1.4. Socio-economic and humanities

A proliferation of CompactLight-based facilities would certainly boost the position of Europe in the photon-sciences, in impact areas that range from nanotechnologies, to medical sciences, to cultural heritage, as it has been described in the Excellence section. In this section we focus on the direct and extended societal impact that CompactLight will have.

Education and Jobs About 10 Postdoc positions will be opened by the CompactLight design study, and in addition externally funded PhD students are expected. Several partners are educational establishments (Universities) and others have a clear educational mandate, like CERN, which for example organizes specialised schools aimed at providing high-level graduate education in the domains of accelerator physics, technology, and particle physics. CompactLight would enable a large number of students to take part in applied advanced R&D, and form the next generation of accelerator and photon physicists, strategically strengthening the position of Europe in the world-wide scenario for the years to come.

As part of CompactLight we plan to run a specialist residential school, and a series of seminars (or webinars), in the first year to ensure that all the postdocs and students have a good basic knowledge of RF, accelerator physics, undulators and FEL applications. The consortium will use project based learning throughout the school to ensure efficient learning. This fills a gap in the spectrum of specialist schools focussing on high energy physics with one focused on light sources, better aimed at the needs of this project, and to train future leaders of FEL machines. This will draw lecturers from the CompactLight con-sortium as well as invited lectures from FEL users and other international experts. While aimed at the staff on the CompactLight project, this could be opened up to others in the accelerator community.

Outreach As part of the project we will develop a simple, cos- effective kit for demonstrating the use of FEL’s to the public, at open days and schools visits. This kit would be distributed to all partners for use at multiple events. One example tool is to develop a simple kit to use diffraction of light from a laser pen on a human hair to measure its width from the diffraction pattern, as a parallel to the X-ray diffraction patterns produced in FELs to study crystals. Examples of such events include the CERN open day and the “Guided Tours for the Public” programme of Elettra-Sincrotrone Trieste.

Environment The effort of CompactLight is to produce cost effective, compact-footprint, new facilities. This would enable the proliferation of photon-based facilities designed to be “green”: environmentally friendly, power efficient, compact.

2.1.4. Strategic Impact

National roadmap documents for future science and technology development are powerful tools for the focus of national and international effort. These roadmaps and white papers constitute recommendations garnered from expert groups, review committees and policy makers. Recommenda-tions are based on the results of research studies and operational experience of large scale research infrastructures, from design studies, prototyping and industry R&D. The knowledge transfer and experi-ence gathered from the CompactLight project will be made available in a concise manner to enable



recommendations and decision making on new projects, whether “green field” or facility upgrades.

It is common for new projects to employ innovative ideas and new technology. Such projects must carry out extensive design studies and prototyping to validate key concepts and techniques. These activities are often high risk and require larger contingency assignments in terms of resources and time. Such con-tingency may burden the funding of projects and encourage more conventional approaches, negating the benefit of innovation and exploitation of newer techniques. The work performed in CompactLight will minimise risk factors and permit to quantify the remaining areas of risk when using X-band technol-ogy. These results will contribute to successful, on-time and on-budget completion of future projects and upgrades.

The identification of risks and risk mitigation is an important aspect of project evaluation. Funding agen-cies that evaluate the risks in the development of a FEL, or of an upgrade of a facility, or of a proposal for a new research infrastructure, will be assisted by the results and deliverables produced by CompactLight. Information gathered will be used to predict the cost of development, identify areas re-quiring additional research (both in institutes and in industry) and identify areas requiring additional resources or effort. This knowledge will give funding agencies and review committees readily accessible information to allow an accurate determination of the feasibility and success of newly proposed projects.

Results from the CompactLight work will provide a more accurate costing of X-band technology. It will permit a more robust forecast of industrial costs for the realisation of key components and will better define any eventual R&D that has to done in the industrial sector for both design and fabrication and the associated quality assurance. The results of the CompactLight work packages will enable greater confi-dence when scaling project costs based on beam energy, i.e. linac length. This will allow funding bodies and agencies greater certainty of proposed budgets and will enable improved project evaluation by identifying and isolating known problematic areas to be given further development and/or research budget. The studies and work package objectives of CompactLight will produce data on the scientific user needs for FELs and the impact compact facilities will have on the scientific community. This information will assist future decision making with regard to the utilisation of FEL radiation in basic and applied scientific research.

2.2. Measures to maximise impact

2.2.1. Dissemination and exploitation of results

Dissemination to scientific policy making bodies The main goal of this Design Study is to design a compact FEL, as well as discussing options to upgrade existing facilities in a cost-effective manner, minimizing the additional space and resources needed. To this end, there will be targeted dissemination to the relevant decision-making bodies, in particular the main stakeholders of existing laboratories and funding agencies considering FEL facilities based on this technology. WP7 will guarantee the dissemination of this strategic information.

The project partners will organize the presentation of results, and prospects for constructions, to the relevant authorities and funding agencies. A concise monograph is foreseen, summarizing the Conceptual Design Report for the purpose of transparent and synthetic information for the decision makers.

Dissemination to the world wide public and media In parallel, the impact of new FELs using this technology will need to be disseminated to the public and



media. One aspect of this is to explain and clarify the links between FEL technology research and fundamental science being done with FEL facilities.

Given that this design study includes the participation of CERN, where the X-band technology is being developed for use in future linear colliders (CLIC), there is a possibility to capitalize on the worldwide attention that CERN has had recently related to the Higgs discovery. CERN will also capitalize on media and outreach resources in existing FEL laboratories, where the FEL capabilities and potential are regu-larly communicated to the public, media and stakeholders. With partners from European countries as well as Asia and Australia, project members will be encouraged to disseminate locally, with the possibil-ity of translating key dissemination material into different languages to reach appropriate audiences. In this way, the project is well placed to disseminate information not only within Europe, but also to a worldwide public.

Dissemination to Industry WP2 will ensure that relations to Industry, particularly on a European level, are established and ex-ploited as appropriate. By making use of the existing industrial relations of the partners, e.g. the Indus-trial Liaison Office (ILO) at Elettra-Sincrotrone Trieste, the CERN External Technology Transfer Network, comprising industrial liaison and TT officers from institutions of its Member States, the project can reach a wide set of European and non-European industries that can deliver and benefit from projects of this type. Around 20 industries have already been identified as industrial partners of the CLIC development project at CERN, and these are natural partners in this project, where the application of the technology is extended to FELs and potential other industrial applications. A project website and dedicated work-shops will be used to communicate and inform industries about the possibilities and spin-out opportuni-ties. Within the CLIC project there are regular workshops related to industrial accelerator developments based on X-band technology and one of these will be dedicated to the coordination of the industrial dis-semination between the CompactLight project focusing on future FELs and the CLIC project at CERN focusing on the use of the same basic technology for a future linear collider.

Dissemination to FEL users and scientific community WP2 will liaise with FEL users during the design study to ensure the XFEL meets the current and projected needs of the researchers. At the end of the project a Workshop will be organised in close collaboration between all workpackages, and in particular WP7, with the aim of presenting the final CompactLight design in its technical aspects, output performance, and present potential new experiments to be performed at the facility.

Public website A project website will act as the central hub of knowledge dissemination to the scientific community, industry, and the general public. Here particular care will be taken by the project coordinator to add disclaimers, to authenticate and to assess information to ensure its usefulness and maintain coherence in the project. The website will consist of an overview section for non- experts, appropriate information about the goals and status of the different activities of CompactLight, a section for industry as well as a section about the project results. Technical deliverables of CompactLight are to be made available on the public website and thus will be accessible to any interested parties.

Expected impact of dissemination activities The overall goals of the dissemination activities above are threefold:

Illustrate the benefits and the societal and scientific potential of improving and constructing new

FEL facilities in several European countries, and hence provide a basis for more such facilities.

Demonstrate and document the potential of X-band technology development to maximize

performance and minimize the cost and size of the installation.



Outline and provide a complete overview of the basic science, applied science, and industrial applications where high brightness electron guns, short period undulators, and X-band technol-ogy will have significant benefits, and provide potential users of the technology with an overview of the industrial basis for all major components using this technology.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Intellectual Property (IP) management will be described in detail in the Partnership Agreement, which will be signed by all the beneficiaries and partner organizations. The policy that is being considered is that all the mechanical drawings and general procedures developed in WP3, WP4 and WP5 will be pub-licly available. Nevertheless, all partners think that IP management provisions shall secure the maximum protection of all rights of the parties. It will also address the confidentiality of any information made available by the disclosing party to the receiving party/parties. In the event that a partner wishes to in-clude background IP to the proposed joint research and innovation project, for the implementation and effective accomplishment of the project objectives, any such pre-existing background, including knowhow, will remain the property of the right holder. Any such background will be listed in the Partnership/Consortium Agreement. Any other background not included in the list shall be automati-cally excluded from project use, although a partner has an option to add background during the project, as it sees fit, for the attainment of the project objectives. The right holders shall record such inclusion of background in writing. The foreground that may be created during the implementation of the CompactLight project at a host organization, shall be vested to, and owned by the host organization.

Results and publications The results of the CompactLight project will be used in agreement with the provisions for exploitation and dissemination laid out in the Partnership/Consortium Agreement. As part of the CompactLight pro-ject, all partners will submit publications to open access repositories (see below) and journals, in line with the recommendations of the EC on open access to scientific information. Dissemination of research results will in most cases use journal publications as well as presentations/publications at conferences, seminars or workshops. Most of the deliverables of the project are in the form of a report. Any publica-tion of results will take place according to the Intellectual Property Rights and publication policies agreed in the Partnership/Consortium Agreement. The scientific publications will be stored and accessi-ble via the well-established CERN CDS (CERN Document Server) library tool that, in addition to the usual access per title, author, date, etc. allows access per project, work package and task. Access to CDS is public and open to any interested reader from all over the world and satisfies the ‘green’ open access policies. The official project reports, such as deliverable reports, periodic reports, the technical docu-ments, such as drawings, milestone reports and all other reports considered by the partners as strategic for the project and specified in the Consortium Agreement will be stored in the CERN EDMS (Electronic Data Management System), with version control. Access to EDMS will be granted to all CompactLight participants.

As outlined above, the partners will endeavour to publish the results of CompactLight as swiftly as pos-sible in conference proceedings and scientific journals where appropriate. The Consortium Agreement will define in detail the procedures for publication. The publication procedures will take into account the potential for commercial exploitation and/or the need for protection of intellectual property rights of the results concerned.

2.2.2. Communication activities

Communication within the project and tools The project has internally a structure where communication and coordination are implemented by a dedicated task in WP1, with participation of the leaders of the other work-packages and tasks. This



ensures an effective two-way flow of information within the project.

The Project Coordination Office will provide appropriate tools to this end. The project intranet will make best use of web-based collaborative workspaces allowing the sharing of information and documents, with discussion facilities, mailing lists managed to maximize the usefulness of information, calendars, and instructions for successful audio and videoconferences. These instruments will complement the more traditional but effective dissemination via the Annual and Final Meetings, the publications and project reports. In addition to dissemination, the annual meetings play a special role by enhancing the flow of information and the interactions, strengthening the consensus and the support of the community for the CompactLight project.

The publication rules will be considered an integral part of the Partnership/Consortium Agreement and the Project Manager (PM) will be responsible for making all necessary arrangements for review and/or amendments to it. The objective of the organisation and communication structure is to obtain maximum transparency for all the partners concerning the technical developments and overall project status. All information (meeting minutes, progress reports, relevant publications, etc.) will be communicated to the PM, who assumes the responsibility for directing this information to the associated partners as appropriate. Communication between the seconded researchers and the partners in each Work Package will be coordinated by the WP leader.

Global communication to the scientific accelerator community The results of the research will be presented at conferences and published in open-access journals. They will also be made available in the public domain via web sites and video casts as well as public lectures and magazines. The designs, operational knowledge and performance measurements will be dissemi-nated to the wider scientific community via talks at appropriate meetings. The simulation codes for beam instrumentation will be disseminated via web-pages and open source code repositories. The re-sults are therefore freely available to every interested party and are expected to have significant impact also in other, related fields of research, development and industry. For the industry, specific reports will be disseminated via the CERN Industry and Technical Transfer Officers and through similar channels at the FEL laboratories. All results will be presented at national and international workshops and confer-ences (i.e. see the list below for typical examples), industry meetings and at presentations in laboratories and universities.

The CLIC Workshop 2017: http://indico.cern.ch/event/577810/

The International Workshop on Breakdown Science and High Gradient Technology: https://indico.hep.anl.gov/indico/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=963

The FEL conference: https://www.fel2017.com/

The LINAC conference: http://frib.msu.edu/misc/linac2016/index.html

Global communication to the General Public The project website will act as the central hub of communication to the general public. The website will contain a section for non-experts, including appropriate information about the goals and status of the different activities of CompactLight, and the wider societal benefits of FELs including examples of scientific research that is enabled by FELs and explaining how this research could impact on society at large.


http://indico.cern.ch/event/577810/

https://indico.hep.anl.gov/indico/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=963

https://www.fel2017.com/

http://frib.msu.edu/misc/linac2016/index.html


To whom it may concern

Re: CompactLight Design Study Proposal for the INFRADEV-01-2017 Work Programme

Dear Sirs

I am writing this letter on behalf of the FELS OF EUROPE Collaboration in strong support of the CompactLight

Design Study proposal.

FELS OF EUROPE is a collaboration of all free electron laser (FEL) facilities in Europe, with the goal to meet the

technological and scientific challenges of these novel and rapidly developing technologies and to provide a

worldwide unique, pan-European research infrastructure that enables exploiting the full scientific potential of

these unique accelerator based short-pulse light sources. The collaboration is an initiative of the ESFRI projects

EuroFEL and European XFEL and includes 14 facilities in 10 countries.

All members of FELS OF EUROPE are either operating or developing FEL facilities and/or advanced short-pulse

light sources, based on accelerator technologies. Due to their unique properties, these light sources provide a

step change in the ability to address research needs across the disciplines of physics, chemistry, materials, and life

sciences. FELs will improve our understanding of processes on a molecular level, leading to development of new

materials and methods for tomorrow’s technological advancement, clean environment, sustainable energy, and

health care.

FELS OF EUROPE will facilitate the enhancement and exploitation of the full scientific potential of FELs in an

efficient way by promoting joint technical development and collaborating closely with the user and related

communities. It will promote efficient open access to the research infrastructure and optimal conditions for users.

The aims of the CompactLight Design Study, to facilitate the widespread development of X-ray FEL facilities across

Europe and beyond, by making them more affordable to construct and operate through an optimum combination

of emerging and innovative accelerator technologies are strongly aligned to those of FELS OF EUROPE and so we

are very supportive of this initiative. We agree that making use of the very latest concepts for bright electron

photoinjectors, very high gradient accelerating structures, and novel short period undulators will result in a more

compact facility with lower construction and operating costs and so increase the speed with which these unique

facilities are implemented across Europe.

The CompactLight consortium brings together an impressive group of more than twenty leading accelerator and

light source laboratories, universities, and industries. The inclusion of many of the leading European FEL

laboratories, including Elettra – Sincrotrone Trieste, PSI, STFC, and INFN, gives confidence that the Hard X-ray

Design Study will be completed successfully and will be the base for a fully fledged user facility with the needs of

the FEL researchers driving the design solution proposed.



Furthermore, the inclusion of CERN and their advanced X-band accelerator technology expertise, developed over

more than two decades, adds an extra positive dimension to this proposal and should certainly give this European

collaboration the edge in advanced compact FEL designs.

Yours sincerely

Dr. Rafael Abela

Chairman of the Steering Committee



3. IMPLEMENTATION

3.1. Work plan — Work packages, deliverables and milestones

The CompactLight project will produce a Conceptual Design Report for a Hard X-ray FEL facility with an optimum combination of emerging and innovative accelerator technologies. The project will be imple-mented through seven Work Packages (WPs), which are briefly summarized and graphically represented below.

In the spirit of a light and efficient structure, the number of WPs has been limited to seven that are considered appropriate to the complexity of the project and adequate for a design study.

WP1 will carry out the general management of the CompactLight Design Study and will be focused on the effective management and coordination of all the WPs and monitoring the budget and plans to ensure timely achievements of project results. It will also outline and implement a Data Management Plan (DMP) in order to optimise and maximise the accessibility and the impact of the XLS results. The DMP will select appropriate repositories and effective strategies to make the results of XLS accessible with as few restrictions as possible, adhering to the Open Research Data Pilot (https://www.openaire.eu/opendatapilot). This will be done in full agreement with our Industrial Partners, neither sharing any sensitive data nor breaching their Intellectual Property Rights.

Figure 3.1: Graphical representation of CompactLight WPs.

WP2 will provide the overall design and integration of the FEL User Facility based on user-driven

WP2FEL Science

requirements and Facility Design

WP1Project Management and Technical Coordination

WP5Undulators and Light

production

WP3Gun and Injector

WP4RF Systems

WP7Global integration with

new Research Infrastructures

WP6Beam dynamics and

Start-to-End modelling

CompactLight WPs graphical representation


https://www.openaire.eu/opendatapilot


scientific requirements. In close connection with WPs 3 to 6, this WP will identify and chose the most appropriate technical solutions, considering cost, technical risk and performance.

WP3 will develop new advanced e-gun designs based on X, C and S band frequencies and, starting from available technologies, will explore new possibilities for phase-space linearization and compression schemes.

WP4 will define the RF system for the linac. A key goal of the WP4 will be the definition of a standard-ized RF unit, applicable to the main and sub-design variants, support industrialization as well as reliability improvement and cost reduction for future facilities.

WP5 determines the FEL undulator design. It will start by investigating state of the art undulators and then will consider on-going developments. Ambitious undulators will be compared considering technologies available on 4-5 years’ time scale.

WP6 will develop and apply consistent tools for modelling the machine from the cathode to the undulator exit, providing key parameters and performance estimates as input to WP2 to elaborate the overall facility design.

WP7 will gather the user demands on FELs and the needs from European laboratories in the near and mid-term future, to address integration plans of the X-band technology for new accelerator-based research Infrastructures both at the European level and worldwide.

The Gantt chart of the CompactLight project is shown on the next page.



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

1

1.1 General governance of CompactLight and scientific management

1.2 Monitoring and reporting, partners coordination

1.3 Administrative and financial coordination

1.4 Dissemination of information

2

2.1 User requests and FEL performance

2.2 FEL layout, accelerator and undulator requirements

2.3 CompactLight CDR

3

3.1 Evaluation of e-gun and injector technologies and options

3.2 Bunch compressors and phase space linearization

3.3 Beam diagnostics and manipulation

3.4 E-gun and injector design

4 6 7

4.1 Parametrized of performance and cost model of the RF unit

4.2 Design report of optimized rf unit

4.3 Accelerating structure design and fabrication procedures

5

5,1 Near and medium term (4-5 years) undulator technology

5,2 Design report of the baseline undulator for the facility

6

6,1 Tools for evaluating the facility performance

6,2 Start to end simulation of the facility

7

7,1 Mid term reports for integration and services analysis

7,2 Final report integration, services and cost analysis

Year 2

Global integration with new Research Infrastructures

CompactLight Gant chart

Year 3Description

RF Systems

Beam Dynamics and Start to End modeling

FEL Science Requirements and Facility Design

Gun and Injector

Year 1WP

Task

Undulators and Light production

D = Deliverable

M = Milestone

Project Management and Technical Coordination M M

M

M

M M M

M

M D

M M M M D

M

M

D M M

D

M

M

D

M

DM

M

D

M

DM

M

M

M

M

M

D

M M DM

D

M

D

M

D

MM

DM M D

M

D

M M

M

M

M

M

M



3.2. Management structure and responsabilities

3.2.1. Management structure and responsabilities

The CompactLight Design Study has twenty-four partners and two third parties and it is divided into seven work packages. The management structure, shown in Fig. 3.1, is designed to favour a transparent and efficient project workflow. It is simple, as appropriate for a Design Study, and is aimed at stimulating the active participation of all partners. The selected structure gives full visibility to all members of the Consortium and allows for the effective technical choices. Moreover, in conjunction with the procedures defined below, it establishes clear responsibilities and decision-making and reporting paths.

Figure 3.1: CompactLight Management structure

The central elements of the structure are the Collaboration Board (CB) and the Project Coordination Office (PCO). The latter is led by the Project Coordinator (PC), Elettra-Sincrotrone Trieste. The Project Manager (PM), representing the PC, is the contractual interface with the European Commission and is responsible for the governance, administration monitoring of progress of the project. The CB is the CompactLight’s decision making body and takes all strategic decisions on project implementation. The Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) is the advisory body which provides scientific and technical advice to the CB and PCO for their strategic and operational decisions. The PCO is the executive body of the CompactLight project and will be responsible for the coordination and management of all the Work Packages (WPs) and Tasks (TSs).

Collaboration Board (CB) and Project Manager (PM) The CB is the top-level decision making and arbitration body of the CompactLight Design Study. It con-sists of one delegate with voting rights per partner and is chaired by the PM. It shall meet at kick-off of the project and at least once per year. Additional meetings can be called upon request of the chair or a simple majority vote of the board. The voting rules will depend on the type of decision concerned and shall be defined in the Consortium Agreement.

The CB shall review work progress, including deliverables, and decide on any eventual modifications to

TS1 TSn

Scientific Advisory

Committee

(SAC)

Project Coordination

Office

(PCO)

WP3 WP4 WP6WP2 WP7WP5

Collaboration Board

(CB)

WP1



the work programme or EC funding allocations, e.g. re-distributions of the budget. It can decide on the withdrawal of partners as well as on default and termination. It appoints the members of the SAC, ap-points/confirms the WP and TS leaders and shall arbitrate issues that are not resolved at lower level.

The PM is responsible for the management and coordination of the CompactLight Design Study and, as the coordinator of WP1, will have the duties described in WP1, notably dissemination of results. The PM will follow up on milestones and deliverables, ensuring a prompt delivery of all obligations identified in the EC Contract. The PM shall monitor the use of resources and the compliance by partners with their obligations under the signed grant and Consortium agreements. The PM shall organize meetings (CB, SAC), workshops, internal and external reviews upon request of the CB or at his own initiative and shall assure an efficient communication between the CompactLight bodies. The PM shall be responsible for the timely collection and preparation of periodic reports and their transmission to the European Commission as well as the final report.

The PM shall be assisted by one Deputy Project Manager (DPM), appointed by the CB, and an Ad-ministrative Manager (AM) provided by the PC. Both shall assist the PM in the daily execution of his tasks and support his duties regarding planning, budget and administration. Legal support will be provided by the PC.

Project Coordination Office (PCO) The PCO is the executive body of the CompactLight and is the "guiding force" in overseeing the project. It will be chaired by the PM and consists of the DPM, AM, WPs leaders and one representative per partner. The PCO shall meet at least three times in the first year and two in the second and third years. Supplementary meetings can be organized upon request of the PM or a simple majority of the board. It will provide support, guidance and oversight of progress for a timely realization of project milestones and deliverables. It supports the coordination and management of the WPs, work program and activity schedule and identifies priorities.

It can decide on technical and administrative matters and evaluates reports received from the WPs/TSs coordinators. The PCO may, via the PM, make proposals to the CB concerning modifications to the work programme and or allocations of EC funding. The voting rules will depend on the type of decision concerned and shall be set up in the Consortium Agreement.

Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) The SAC is the advisory body to the CB. SAC members shall be recognized experts from international laboratories or universities that are not participants in the CompactLight Design Study. The three to five members shall be appointed by the CB and shall meet at least once per year upon request of the PM. The SAC shall advise the CB on all scientific matters related to the CompactLight design study. The elected chair of the SAC shall attend the CB meetings but only with an advisory role.

Work Package (WP) coordinators WP coordinators shall be appointed/confirmed by the CB and are responsible for coordinating the scientific activities of their WP. They are responsible for the timely completion of objectives, milestones and deliverables. They also report on the progress of the work. They are responsible for promoting communication and cooperation amongst the participants in their WP, organizing periodical meetings and encouraging discussion on technical subjects.

Task (TS) leaders Based on proposals made by the WP coordinators, the CB appoints/confirms TS leaders. They shall lead and coordinate the technical activities related to their task. They shall ensure the effective cooperation between the participants in their task; monitor the progress of the work including progress towards milestones and deliverables. They shall contribute to the preparation of all periodic and final reports



related to their respective tasks.

3.2.2. Internal reporting procedures

Procedures for reporting by partners and WP coordinators to the CB and Project Manager, the use of resources and scientific and technical progress, will be specified in the Consortium agreement.

3.2.3. Risk analysis and mitigation measures

Mitigation of risk is principally based on the extensive experience of the partners through the setting of realistic goals already at this proposal stage. The PCO, responsible for project monitoring activities, will oversee the CompactLight project and shall continuously monitor developments and achievements. It shall also take care of risk analysis and mitigation actions.

The CompactLight project is aimed at producing a Conceptual Design Report for a hard X-ray FEL facility based on the X-band technology and novel short period undulators. To ensure smooth progress the project will be implemented through seven WPs, all inter-related, to cover a full development cycle of the design and prototype validation.

The teams that must achieve the deliverables are part of some of the most important laboratories worldwide. They have been implemented in such a way that in case of problems there is significant supporting expertise available. For this reason, a technical and/or management issues in one WP or task is therefore unlikely to have major impact on the entire project. For the highest-risk activities, for example the hardware testing in WP4, there are strong links with industrial partners and backup scenarios which are included at the design phase.

A selected number of risks per WPs, with corresponding contingency plans, are summarized in Table 3.2b. However it is important to point out that the risk identification and analysis will continue throughout the project, especially during project start-up and at milestones.

3.3. Consortium as a whole

The CompactLight Consortium is composed of twenty four Partners and four Third Parties and has been established with complementary and overlapping expertise to ensure the critical mass for a successfully completion of all the work packages and tasks of the project. It brings together a wide range of scientific, technical and industrial competencies - from FEL user scientists, FEL facility experts, undulator experts, accelerator physicists, RF specialists as well as those for manufacturing high precision accel-erator parts, i.e. accelerating structures, complex sub-systems, i.e. undulators prototypes and complex modules. The Consortium is a mix of universities, large research laboratories and industry, which pro-vides a good balance between academic and practical engineering spirit. This is particularly effective for matching together physics ambitions and hardware realization. The overall structure of the Consortium and the specific skills of each partner are well adapted to address and achieve the ambitious objectives of the project. Tab. 3.3 summarizes the connections between their role in CompactLight and their specific skills.

The consortium includes nine European Countries, Italy, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Neth-erlands, Norway, Greece, Sweden, Finland, one International Organization, CERN, two European Associated Countries, Switzerland and Turkey and two Third Countries, China and Australia. Two industries, from Italy and Netherlands, are full member of the CompactLight Consortium. The map below shows the location of Consortium members.

The worldwide character of the Consortium reflects the broad interest in the CompactLight project, as



well as the relevance and the strategic role that the emerging and innovative accelerator technologies, based on extremely bright e-guns, very high gradient accelerating structures and novel short period undulators, will likely play in future FELs and linear colliders.

In addition, the activities of this design study will also have a strong return value for the CERN CLIC pro-ject. As is well known, CERN is involved in the development of several accelerator technologies for po-tential future machines. Among them is the CLIC X-band based linear collider concept. The CLIC study is an international collaboration involving more than 70 institutes in 26 countries, financed by CERN and the collaborating institutes. The programme is currently planned for a 5 year period towards 2019-20. Over the last years the maturity of the X-band technology has reached a level where its use in FELs and industrial accelerators can be envisaged and looks very promising, and there is a very large and increas-ing interest from many laboratories to work with CERN, related to adapting and bench-marking the technology for such uses. CERN welcomes that the FEL laboratory community have organised their ef-fort in a Design Study to optimize the design and testing, the relation with industry and the strategic planning for future FEL linacs based on this technology. Within the limitations of CERN to work on pro-jects outside particle physics, CERN will be able to make expertise and infrastructure financed for CLIC studies available to help in transferring the technology and carry out some crucial tests at the CERN premises.

The funding sought by CERN in this proposal is therefore earmarked for personnel and operation costs for CompactLight related work and technology transfer at CERN, coming in addition to the CLIC project R&D going on in parallel. For the industrial base of the CLIC project, the CompactLight project can have a very positive impact, helping also the CLIC project in industrializing the technology as needed for a possible large accelerator project in the future.

Figure 3.2: Geographical location of Consortium members



Table 3.3: Connections between role in the project and specific skills of each partner.

Participant Number Name

Country Specific skills Role in the Project

1 - ST Elettra-Sincrotrone Trieste

S.C.p.A.

Italy

ST has extensive experience in designing, building and operating particle accelerators for synchrotron radiation sources. Recently the laboratory has commissioned the free electron laser FERMI, which is a 4th generation photon source, open to users since 2012 with 3 beam lines. FERMI uses a novel operational scheme (seeding) that allows a complete control and reproducibility of the photon beam characteristics. ST is actively involved on several national and international research programs, and is coordinator of the two FP7 projects PASTRY (http://www.pastryproject.eu) and CALIPSO (www.calipso.wayforlight.eu), the latter involving 20 European Synchrotrons and FELs, including European XFEL, SOLARIS and the Turkish FEL TARLA.

Work Package leader WP1, project management and coordination.

Participation in WP2-WP6, facility design, pre-injector and main linac design, undulator design and beam dynamics simulations.

Dissemination of results, spreading of information, industry collaboration.

Work Package leader WP7, CompactLight global integration.

2 - CERN European Organization for

Nuclear Research Switzerland

One of the CERN’s leading projects for the post-LHC era is the CLIC Study. Over the last years the CLIC Study has demonstrated the applicability of X-band technology to particle accelerators. CERN personnel have undisputed worldwide reputation in particle accel-erator design, construction, and operation.

Work Package leader WP4. X-band structures design. Design of standardized RF unit. Linac and bunch compressors design,

and specification. Facility design and beam dynamics

simulation and performance assess-ments, WP2 and WP6.

Participation in WP1 as well as WP7, supporting project management and coordination as well as CompactLight global integration for new RI (WP7).

3 - STFC Science and Technology

Facilities Council

United Kingdom

Expertise in accelerator driven light sources, including Diamond Light Source, ALICE FEL design and operation, 4GLS FEL design and NLS FEL design. Currently leading construction of CLARA FEL Test Facility and hosting it at Daresbury Laboratory. Proven experience in undulator

Work Package Leader for WP2. Participation in WP1, supporting the

project management and coordination. Participation in WP5 and WP6 for



design and development. undulator design and beam dynamics simulations.

Participation in WP7 supporting the global integration of CompactLight

Task 2.1, hard X-ray FEL design: selec-tion of FEL and accelerator parameters, FEL modelling, accelerator physics design.

4 - SINAP Shanghai Institute of Applied

Physics China

SINAP has a long experience in light source development. The Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility (SSRF) has been successfully running for users for the past five years, and the Shanghai Soft X-ray Free Electron Lasers (SXFEL), has been recently approved by Chinese Government. Several key technologies are being developed for Synchrotron light sources and FELs: high gradient accelerating structures, superconductive RF cavities (single and 5-cells) for storage rings, short period in-vacuum undulators for compact FEL .

Participation in WP2, FEL modelling and overall facility design.

Participation in WP4 in X-band struc-ture and standardized RF unit design.

5 - IASA Institute of Accelerating

Systems and Applications Greece

IASA pursues particle accelerator research and is promoting graduate studies in areas where accelerator related technologies play a major role. Their scientific staff has developed strong and fruitful cooperation with European industrial firms for a long time, dis-seminating innovative and advanced technology to them. There are, already, some FP7 projects, i.e. AIDA, EDUSAFE, etc., where the relationship of IASA with industry plays an important role in the projects.

Participation in WP1, supporting the project management and coordination.

Participation in WP3 and WP6 for injector design and beam dynamics simulations.

Participation in WP7 supporting the global integration of CompactLight.

6 - UU Uppsala Universitet

Sweden

UU has a long experience with accelerator physics and instrumenta-tion development. In particular: It developed the two-beam test stand for beam test of accelerating

structures. It developed diagnostics for the klystron based test stands for

accelerating structures. It is working on the design of a soft X-ray laser beam line for the

MAX IV Laboratory and the design of a THz-FEL at UU.

Participation in WP2, facility design. Participation in WP4 RF structure and

standardized RF unit design. Participation in WP6 for beam dynam-

ics simulations



7 - UoM The University of Melbourne

Australia

With over 40,000 research and undergraduate students, the University of Melbourne is Australia’s highest ranking university. The Experimental Particle Physics group has been a long time member of the ATLAS Collaboration at CERN. Since 2010 as part of the Australian Collaboration for Accelerator Science the university has been a member of the CLIC Collaboration and in 2016 joined the FCC Collaboration, both at also at CERN.

Participation in WP1, project manage-ment and coordination.

Participation in WP2 and WP6, facility design and beam dynamics simulations.

Participation in WP4, RF structure and standardized RF unit design.


8 - ANSTO Australian Nuclear Science

and Technology Organisation Australia

ANSTO operates the Synchrotron Light Source Laboratory. Expertise in: Operation of a large synchrotron light source user facility (3GeV). Running a 100MeV electron linac. Modelling low emittance electron sources. Modelling, operating, calibrating and using insertion device magnets

for generating synchrotron radiation.

Participation in WP1 supporting project management and project coordination.

Participation in WP4 and WP5, main linac and undulator designs.

Participation in WP6 for beam dynam-ics simulations.

9 - UA-IAT Ankara Universitesi

Turkey

UA-IAT is actively involved on particle accelerator developments and accelerator based light sources in Turkey. It operates TARLA, the Turkish Accelerator and Radiation Laboratory in Ankara, an oscillator FEL facility based on a superconducting linear accelerator. The institute is also leading the Turkish Accelerator Center Project which involves the design studies of a synchrotron facility, proton accelerator facility and X-ray FEL facility that are planned to be con-structed in Turkey.

Work Package Leader for WP6. Participation in WP2, WP3 and WP4,

FEL design, pre-injector and linac de-sign.

Participation WP5, undulator design. Participation in WP1 and WP7, project

management and CompactLight global integration.

10 - ULANC Lancaster University

United Kingdom

Lancaster University is a member of the CERN CLIC collaboration and has skills in RF design, RF testing and deflecting cavity development for accelerators. The group has been involved in the design of deflecting cavities for LHC, CLIC, ILC, VELA and CLARA accelerators.

Participation in WP3 for beam diagnos-tics and manipulation.

11 - VDL ETG VDL ETG Technology &

Development B.V. Netherlands

VDL ETG Precision Technology is a private company, specialized in the (co)development of high precision parts, sub-assembly’s, prototypes and modules. These products require high/ultra precision turning & milling, special measurements, and heat & surface treatments. VDL ETG is involved with CERN (CLIC project) for manufacturing

Participation in WP4, for X-band struc-ture manufacturability and series production.

Participation in WP7 supporting the global integration of CompacLight.



accelerating structures and prototypes, and is well aware of the manufacturing challenges.

12 – TU/e Technische Universiteit

Eindhoven Netherlands

The Technische Universiteit Eindhoven is one of the most prestigious universities in the Netherlands. Proven experience in e-gun physics, injector design, charged particle tracking simulations.

Participation in WP3 for e-gun and pre-injector design.

13 - INFN Istituto Nazionale di Fisica

Nucleare Italy

INFN is a research institute aimed to the study of the fundamental constituents of matter, which conducts theoretical and experimental research in the fields of sub-nuclear, nuclear, astroparticle and particle accelerator physics. The SPARC_LAB test facility in Frascati is an inter-disciplinary laboratory born from the integration of a last generation photo-injector, able to produce electron beams up to 200 MeV energy with high peak current (> 1 kA) and low emittance (<2 mm-mrad). SPARC_LAB is also considered an accelerator test facility in the framework of the European collaborations ELI, EUROFEL, EuPRAXIA and EURONNAC.

Work Package Leader for WP3. Participation in WP2, for the overall

design of the FEL facility, Participation in WP4, for the RF struc-

ture and standardized RF unit design. Participation in WP6, beam dynamics

and start-to-end simulations. Participation in WP1 and WP7, project

management and CompactLight global integration.

14 - Kyma Kyma S.r.l.

Italy

Kyma was established in August 2007 by Elettra Sincrotrone Trieste S.C.p.A., with the primary purpose to design, realize and install the undulators for the FERMI@Elettra FEL project. Since its establishment, Kyma became a reference supplier in the light source community, with almost fifty insertion devices designed and manufactured. Kyma is now recognized as a qualified partner for the design and development of this kind of equipment.

Participation in WP5, to explore the manufacturing and industrialization process of CompactLight undulators.


15 - SAPIENZA University of Rome "La

Sapienza" Italy

The University of Rome La Sapienza is the biggest university in Europe. The Accelerator team of the SBAI department is heavily involved in theoretical studies, RF modelling and numerical simulations. The expertise unit in beam physics is supported by international long-standing collaborations within EU as well as US international laboratories.

Participation in WP3, e-gun and beam diagnostics and manipulation design.

16 - ENEA Agenzia Nazionale per le

Nuove Tecnologie, l'Energia Italy

ENEA is the Italian Agency for energy, new technologies and sus-tainable economic development. ENEA FRASCATI has been involved in the field of FELs since the very beginning of the FEL physics. Important

Work Package leader for WP5. Study of exotic undulator schemes Study of undulator performance and



e lo Sviluppo Economico Sostenibile

results have been obtained and three members of the ENEA team have been awarded in the past with the FEL yearly prize (Alberto Renieri, Giuseppe Dattoli and Luca Giannessi). ENEA has a proven experience in undulator design and development.

their integration with start-to-end simulations (WP6).

Participation in WP1 and WP7, project management and CompactLight global integration.

17 - ALBA-CELLS Consorcio para la

Construccion Equipamiento y Explotacion del

Laboratorio de Luz Sincrotron

Spain

ALBA-CELLS operates a 3rd generation Synchrotron Light facility. Its Accelerator team is the first group within Spain which has dealt with the design, construction and operation of a complex accelerator infra-structure and has built up experience in all its technologies. It is now an active member of international collaborations for state of the art accelerator physics and technology, offering key contributions to new synchrotron light facilities or other accelerator based projects.

Main contribution participating WP2, WP3, WP5 and WP6, facility design, injector and undulator design, beam dynamics simulations.

Participation in WP1 and WP7, project management and CompactLight global integration.

18 - CNRS Centre National de la

Recherche Scientifique France

CNRS will participate CompactLight with the Laboratory of the Linear Accelerator (CNRS). The research activity of the CNRS is centered on particles physics, supplemented by a strong component in cosmology and astrophysics. The laboratory ensures its mission of transmission of knowledge by some activities of teaching and communication.

Participation in WP2, facility design. Participation in WP3, e-gun and pre-

injector design. Participation in WP4 standardized RF

unit design.

19 - KIT Karlsruher Institut für

Technologie Germany

KIT, the Research University in the Helmholtz Association, combines the traditions of a renowned technical university and a major large-scale research facility in a very unique way. It is one of the largest, most prestigious, and leading engineering and technology universities in Germany. KIT hosts the Accelerator Technology Platform (ATP) which comprises the accelerator test facilities ANKA and FLUTE. The KIT institutes IBPT (Institute for Beam Physics and Technology) and LAS (Laboratory for Applications of Synchrotron Radiation) have a proven experience in developing superconducting insertion devices, particularly superconducting undulators for compact light sources. They are an active partner in the CLIC collaboration being in charge of developing, testing and operating the prototype of the CLIC damping wigglers. KIT-IBPT and KIT-LAS furthermore have a recognized expertise in fast ultra-short bunch diagnostics.

Participation in WP4 for the design of the standardized RF unit.

Participation in WP5, for the design of an innovative superconducting un-dulator.



20 - PSI Paul Scherrer Institut PSI

Switzerland The Paul Scherrer Institute, PSI, is the largest research institute for natural and engineering sciences within Switzerland. It operates the Swiss Light Source (SLS) and is commissioning the SwissFEL facility.

Participation in WP5, for the design of advanced compact undulators.

21 - CSIC Agencia Estatal Consejo

Superior de Investigaciones Científicias

Spain

The Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) is the largest public institution dedicated to research in Spain and the third largest in Europe. IFIC has been active in instrumentation for accelerators and particle physics experiments and has been contributing to the ac-celerator and detector R&D for the LHC/HL-LHC, ILC and CLIC.

Participation in WP4 for the design of RF components and LLRF system for X-band systems.

22 - UH/HIP University of Helsinki -

Helsinki Institute of Physics Finland

The Helsinki Institute of Physics is very active in carry out and facilitate research in basic and applied physics as well as in physics research and technology development at international accelerator laboratories The Institute has a proven experience in material science and breakdowns in high-gradient structures

Participation in WP4, for thermo-me-chanical design and optimization of the standardized X-band module

23 - VU VU University Amsterdam

Netherlands

The Vrije Universiteit (VU) Amsterdam is one of Europe’s most prominent research-led universities. It is leading in laser techniques to generate EUV and soft-X-ray laser light, which is to be used for FEL seeding. It co-operates the Advanced Research Center for Nanolithography, the launching platform of FEL-NL.

Participation in WP6, beam dynamics and start-t-end simulations-

Participation in WP7 for CompactLight global integration.

24 - USTR University of Strathclyde

UK

University of Strathclyde is a leading international technological university. The ABP research group is one of the largest university research groups in the area of high power millimetre waves in the UK, with an internationally leading reputation in the field. The senior academics in the ABP group have more than 25 years of research experience in coherent high power millimetre wave sources. The group will provide staff of high expertise and well-equipped facilities to the project.

Participation in WP3 developing high frequency components for beam ma-nipulation.



Third Parties Name

Country Specific skills Role in the Project

1 - Oslo Universitetet i Oslo

Norway Through its contributions to the CLIC project, Oslo has significant expertise in the design and experimental tests of X-band technology components as well as X-band machine design.

WP2: FEL modelling and facility design. WP4: RF unit and linac design.

2 - ARCNL Advanced Research Center

for Nanolithography Netherlands

ARCNL is the newly founded expert center for EUV nanolithography. It is specialized in the generation of EUV/soft-X-ray generation and detection. It acts as the launching platform for the Dutch FEL initiative FEL-NL.

Participation in WP6, beam dynamics and start-to-end simulations.

Participation in WP7 for CompactLight global integration.

3 - NTUA National Technical University

of Athens Greece

The NTUA High Energy Physics team, working at CERN experiments, has a more than 40 years experience with gas detectors construction, front-end electronics, data acquisition and detector control systems (DCS).

The NTUA-HEP team will cooperate with the IASA team at the WP3 and WP6.

4 - AUEB Athens University Economics

& Business Greece

The AUEB team has developed a many years experience on market survey of innovative products to be commercialised, in the high technology management and liaison with industry.

The AUEB team will cooperate with the IASA team at the WP1 and WP7.


A 777431 - XLS Part B Pag 56 of 109

3.4. Resources to be committed

The CompactLight design study has a total budget of 3,551,125 € and total requested contribution from the EC of 2,999,500 €. Most of funding, 2,586,000 €, will be used for personnel. 441,300 € are personnel costs from the Australian and Chinese partners, who do not receive any EU contributions: their costs will be covered entirely by their own funding agencies. The total amount allocated for travels and subsistence is 254,000 € (9.8% of the personnel costs), a figure chosen to ensure close contacts among all participants, both for technical and scientific work and for project governance (Collaboration Board (CB) and Project Coordination (PC) meetings). No costs for equipment, infrastructures or other assets are foreseen. The project will greatly benefit from existing facilities and equipment of the partners.

The budget distribution among all the CompactLight partners is shown below.

Requested EU funding

(2,999,500 €)

ST

12%

CERN

10%

VDL

3%

TU/e

3%

INFN

7%

ENEA

7%

PSI

4%

CSIC

3%

HIP

2%

VU

3%

USTR

2%

STFC

11%

IASA

2%UU

4%UA-IAT

3%

ULANC

4%

URM

2%KYMA

3%

KIT

4%

ALBA

5%

CNRS

3%

ST

CERN

STFC

IASA

UU

UA-IAT

ULANC

VDL

TU/e

INFN

KYMA

URM

ENEA

ALBA

CNRS

KIT

PSI

CSIC

HIP

VU

USTR



Table 3.4b: ‘Other direct cost’ items (travel, equipment, other goods and services, large research infrastructure)

1 - ST Cost (k€) Justification

Travel 64 Travel to collaborators/conferences, project meetings and workshops organization/participation.

Equipment 0

Other goods and services 0

Total 64

2 - CERN Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

3 -STFC Cost (k€) Justification

Travel 10 Travel to collaborators, project meetings/conferences and workshop participation.

Equipment 0


Total 10

4 -SINAP Cost (k€) Justification

Travel 0

Equipment 0


Total 0

5 - IASA Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

6 – UU Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

7 – UoM Cost (k€) Justification

Travel 0

Equipment 0


Total 0

8 – ANSTO-ST Cost (k€) Justification

Travel 0

Equipment 0


Total 0



9 - UA-IAT Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

10 – ULANC Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

11 – VDL Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

12 – TU/e Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

13 – INFN Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

14 – Kyma Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

15 - SAPIENZA Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

16 - ENEA Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10



17 - ALBA-CELLS Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

19 – KIT Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

20 - PSI Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

18 – CNRS Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

21 – CSIC Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

22 – UH/HIP Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 5

23 - VU Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 10

24 – USTR Cost (k€) Justification


Equipment 0


Total 5



4. Members of the Consortium

4.1 Participants (applicants)

The consortium includes 24 Partners and 4 Associated Partners, with complementary and overlapping expertise. Most of them are internationally leading universities, research institutes and laboratories, representing 9 European Countries, Italy, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Sweden, Finland, 1 International Organization, CERN, 2 European Assiociated Countries, Switzerland and Turkey and 2 Third Countries, China and Australia.

Two industries, from Italy and Netherlands, are full member of the CompactLight Consortium.

Full name of participant: Elettra - Sincrotrone Trieste S.C.p.A.

Short name of Participant: ST Participant No.: 1

Description of Participant:

Elettra Sincrotrone Trieste (ST) is an international research centre specialized in generating high-quality synchrotron and free electron laser light and applying it in materials science. Every year ST hosts more than 1000 scientists from more than 50 countries thus representing a gravity centre for all scientific initiatives in Italy, Europe and worldwide. ST has built and operates two Synchrotron Radiation sources: the third generation storage ring Elettra and more recently the Free Electron Laser FERMI. Elettra is routinely operated in top-up mode, at energies of 2.0 and 2.4 GeV providing 23 operational beamlines (3 more are currently under commissioning). FERMI is a forth generation light source that started its operation at the end of 2010 and open to users since 2012 with 3 operating beamlines. It is one of the two existing installations of this kind in Europe, the other one being FLASH in Hamburg. With respect to FLASH, FERMI offers complementary characteristics since it exploits the novel operational scheme (seeding) allowing complete control and reproducibility of the photon beam characteristics such as wavelength and intensity. Moreover, FERMI allows for the control of the photon beam polarization. ST is associated with IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency and is part of the primary network for science and technology of the CEI, the Central European Initiative. Elettra is in close relationship with the National Laboratory TASC (IOM-CNR), a research centre active in solid state physics, nano and materials sciences, micro-manufacturing and synchrotron radiation, which operates on the same site, and has established enduring working relationships with important Italian and foreign partner institutions, including various CNR (National Research Council) bodies, the Academies of Science of Austria and the Czech Republic, UNESCO’s International Centre of Theoretical Physics (ICTP), the International School of Advanced Studies (SISSA), the Indian Institute of Science and several Universities in Italy and Europe.

Work Packages in XLS:

Coordinator of WP1 and WP7

Participant in WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5, and WP6


http://www.iaea.org/


Short CV for the key persons:

Gerardo D'Auria, Dr. (male) is a Senior Accelerator Scientist. Project leader of FERMI X-band systems. He has led the ST Linac group for about 20 years and actively contributed to the FERMI FEL design and Linac upgrading program with machine layout optimization and prototype developments. He has 30 years of experience working with electron accelerators, and is a recognized expert in Linacs and high power RF systems. Project leader of the three year program for the development of high power X-band components funded by “Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia” in the framework of the “Cross-Border Italia-Slovenia European Regional Development Funds”.

Simone Di Mitri, Dr. (male) is a Senior Accelerator Scientist since 2013. In charge of designing the electron beam delivery system of FERMI FEL and physics liaison support for the FERMI layout and electron beam dynamics. Expert of optics design and beam dynamic simulation. He has actively participated to the FERMI and Elettra commissioning with theoretical and experimental study of single bunch collective instabilities. He is contract Professor at Trieste University.

Regina Rochow, Dr. rer. nat. (PhD, female) has a PhD in Physics and many years of experience in conducting EU projects and managing EU Grants. She has been the scientific responsible at ST for different European and national projects. Now she is supporting ST researchers as a project officer in proposal preparation and grant management particularly for the H2020 and Interreg Programmes. Activities include daily assistance in proposals preparation and submission, administrative and organisational project management, drafting of procedures, monitoring and reporting on activities. She is currently the administrative manager of the two Interreg Italia-Austria projects InCIMa and EXOTHERA.

Relevant publications, products, services (max 5):

G. D'Auria et al., "Linac Design for the FERMI Project", Linac'06, Knoxville, Tennessee USA, August 21-25, 2006.

G. D’Auria, “Application of X-band Linacs”, Invited talk at the 26th Int. Linear Acc. Conf. Linac'12, Tel-Aviv, Israel, September 9-14, 2012.

G. D’Auria, “X-band technology applications at FERMI@Elettra FEL project”, NIMA-657 (1), (2011).

S. Di Mitri et al., “Electron Beam Brightness in Linac Drivers for Free Electron Lasers”, Physics Reports 539 (2014).

S. Di Mitri et al., “Microbunching Instability Suppression with Electron-Magnetic-Phase Mixing”, Phys. Rev. Letters 112, 134802 (2014).



Relevant previous projects ( max 5):

FERMI FEL - Design, construction and commissioning of a fourth-generation synchrotron light source.

RAMIRI 2 - "Realising and Managing International Research Infrastructures 2", (www.ramiri-blog.eu), an FP7 project. Coordinator.

CALIPSO - “Coordinated Access to Lightsources to Promote Standards and Optimization” (www.calipso.wayforlight.eu) an FP7 I3 project that involves 20 European Synchrotrons and FELs, including European XFEL, SOLARIS and the Turkish FEL TARLA. Coordinator.

CERIC-ERIC - "Central European Research Infrastructure Consortium" (www.ceric-eric.eu), a distributed research facility, set up by Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia and open to other interested countries. Member of the Consortium, through the Italian Government.

EuroFEL - member of the Consortium.

Full name of participant: European Organization for Nuclear Research.

Short name of Participant: CERN Participant No.: 2


CERN is the world's largest particle physics centre and operates the world’s largest complex of particle accelerators. The 60-year history of CERN is marked with impressive achievements in the construction and operation of powerful linear and circular accelerators. At the end of 2009, CERN brought into operation the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). With proton-proton collisions at 14 TeV, the LHC will be the most powerful accelerator in the world, awaited so eagerly by the particle physics communities on all continents. CERN has experience in managing the largest world accelerator infrastructures and by its very nature of International Organization the expertise in leading large-scale collaborations involving a large number of institutes from all over the world. CERN has a long and solid experience in the EU Framework Programmes and the CERN administrative, legal and financial services are competent to process all issues the consortium may have to face, including at the highest political level if required. Over several decades, CERN has developed and maintained leading expertise in various fields, in particular accelerator physics, radio frequency cavities, magnet design, beam collimation and superconducting technologies.


Coordinator of WP4



http://www.ramiri-blog.eu/





Walter Wuensch, Dr. (male) is head of the RF development program for the CLIC study. Notably he has led the successful effort to achieve accelerating gradients in excess of 100 MV/m and has made major contributions to the basic understanding of the behavior of metal surfaces under high electric fields. He is now actively pursuing the transfer of this accumulated knowledge to new applications such as XFELS and medical accelerators.

Andrea Latina, Dr. (male) is an expert of electron Linacs beam dynamics. He participates in the CLIC project since 2005, where he has made major contributions to the development of simulation tools and to the design and optimization of the CLIC main beam transport. For several years he contributed also to the International Linear Collider (ILC), and he coordinates for Europe the Main Linac Beam Physics working group of the ILC-CLIC collaboration.

Daniel Schulte, Dr. (male) is head of the CLIC parameter and design effort. He has been working on linear colliders since 1992 and is the original author of two widely used simulation codes in this field, GUINEA-PIG and PLACET. He designed the Linac optics of CLIC and the CLIC Test Facility 3. He developed beam-based correction procedures and actively supports their transfer to other Linacs. With the CLIC team, he is working on a cost optimised machine design and looks forward to apply these methods to FELs.


A. Latina et al.: Experimental demonstration of a global dispersion-free steering correction at FACET. Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 17, 059901 (2014)

A. Latina et al.: Beam delivery system tuning and luminosity monitoring in the Compact Linear Collider. Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 15, 051006

D. Schulte et al.: “Tracking studies of the Compact Linear Collider collimation system”, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 12, 081001.

N. Catalan-Lasheras et. al., “Experiences Operating an X-Band High-Power Test Stand at CERN” IPAC’14, Dresden, June 2014.

A. Degiovanni et. al., “High-Gradient Test Results From a CLIC Prototype Accelerating Structure: TD26CC”, IPAC’14, Dresden, June 2014.


LHC - Design, construction and operation of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world’s largest particle accelerator.

CLIC - Design and component prototyping of the Compact Linear Collider (CLIC).

Hilumni LHC - "High Luminosity Large Hadron Collider" Design Study, an FP7 project aimed at increasing the LHC luminosity. Coordinator.



Full name of participant: Science and Technology Facilities Council.

Short name of Participant: STFC Participant No.: 3


STFC is one of the UK’s seven publicly funded Research Councils, supporting Particle Physics and Astronomy, enabling access to international facilities such as CERN and ESRF, and national facilities such as the Diamond Light Source, ISIS spallation source and Central Laser facility. STFC has an annual budget of over £400M, and employs over 1600 people, principally within its Daresbury and Rutherford-Appleton National Laboratories. Preparation for future FEL facilities is a significant theme of STFC research; STFC produced the design for NLS, a 4th generation superconducting FEL facility for the UK, is actively engaged in FEL projects such as Swiss-FEL, and is leading the implementation of the CLARA FEL Test Facility at Daresbury Laboratory.

Work Packages in XLS

Coordinator of WP2

Participant in WP1, WP5, WP6, and WP7


Jim Clarke, Prof. (male) is Head of Science Division and Magnetics and Radiation Sources Group within the Accelerator Science and Technology Department of STFC. He has 27 years of experience of working with electron accelerators, and is a recognized expert in undulators for light sources, including FELs. He was leader of the ALICE FEL project (the first FEL in the UK) and is now leader of the CLARA FEL Test Facility and the UK XFEL Underpinning Technology Programme.

Deepa Angal-Kalinin, Mrs (female) is Head of Accelerator Physics in ASTeC, more than 30 years of experience in the field of accelerator design, beam dynamics and commissioning/operation of accelerators; Global Design Effort European coordinator for Reference Design Report - International Linear Collider Beam Delivery System; Beam Delivery System Work package coordinator for EUROTeV (2004-2008). Elected member of European Physical Society - Accelerator Group (2011-2017). Expert in beam dynamics simulations for single pass FELs.

Neil Thompson, Dr. (male) is an international expert in FEL design, simulation and commissioning. He led the design of the NLS FELs and now leads the design for the CLARA FEL. He was lead commissioner for the ALICE FEL and has also made contributions to SwissFEL at PSI and NGLS at LBNL.


J. A. Clarke, “The Science and Technology of Undulators and Wigglers”, Oxford University Press, Book 4 in the Oxford Series on Synchrotron Radiation, 2004.

J. A. Clarke, D. Angal-Kalinin, N. R. Thompson et al., “CLARA Conceptual Design Report”, 2014 JINST 9 T05001.

N.R. Thompson, D.J. Dunning, J.A. Clarke et al, “First lasing of the ALICE infra-red Free-Electron Laser”, NIM A 680 (2012) 117–123.

B. W. J. McNeil and N. R. Thompson. X-ray Free-Electron Lasers. Nature Photonics, 4:814–821, 2010.

B. W. J. McNeil, N. R. Thompson, and D. J. Dunning. Transform-Limited X-Ray Pulse Generation from a High-Brightness Self-Amplified Spontaneous-Emission Free-Electron Laser. Phys. Rev. Lett., 110:134802, Mar 2013.




CLARA – 250 MeV FEL test facility at Daresbury where novel FEL concepts and accelerator technologies will be proven

ALICE – Energy Recovery Linac with IR FEL at Daresbury Laboratory, used as an accelerator test facility and as a user facility with particular focus on cancer diagnosis and research

NLS – proposed UK national 2.25 GeV soft X-ray FEL facility utilizing superconducting RF linac and three separate FELs

Full name of participant: Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics

Short name of Participant: SINAP Participant No.: 4


SINAP was established in 1959 and named as Shanghai Institute of Nuclear Research before June 2003, Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics (SINAP), is one institute of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), which covers comprehensive researches in photon science, nuclear science and technology, and interdisciplinary studies, and in promoting industrial development of the scientific and technological achievements. It has two campuses occupying a total area of 47 hectares, being located in Shanghai Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park and Jiading district, the satellite township of science and technology in Shanghai. SINAP has been making efforts towards developing it in about 15 years into one advanced photon science center and multi-disciplinary research base combining nuclear science and technology with other disciplinary of sciences. SINAP research is focused mainly on accelerator physics and techniques, advanced photon science, nuclear science and technology (excluding those for arms) and interdisciplinary studies. SINAP has built the Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility (SSRF), the biggest scientific project in China, and has been running SSRF for users for five years successfully. Meanwhile SINAP has been developing the Free Electron Lasers for several years, and recently Shanghai Soft X-ray Free Electron Lasers (SXFEL) has been approved by Chinese Central Government, which will be the R&D of future hard X-ray FEL project at SINAP. Several key technologies have been developing for photon science center. High gradient accelerating structure will be crucial technology for future compact hard X-ray FEL, which total length is limited to 580m reaching 6.5GeV. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Superconductive Radio-Frequency Cavity Techniques has developed prototype of single-cell and 5-cell superconducting cavities, and it will be crucial basis for future storage ring light source. Undulator technology has also been developed for several years, and many products are running at different light sources in many countries, and in particular short period in-vacuum undulator is being developed for compact FEL right now.


Participant in WP2 and WP4




Zhentang Zhao, Dr. (male) is the General Director of SINAP and SSRF. His research is mainly focused on storage ring light source and FEL. He is responsible for this collaboration research at SINAP. He led the R&D and construction of Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation facility (SSRF), and now is responsible for Shanghai Soft X-ray FEL (SXFEL) at SINAP.

Qiang Gu, Dr. (male) is deputy leader of FEL Division at SINAP and his research is mainly focused on Linac physics and technology, in particular on high advanced photocathode electron gun and injector. He led the design and construction of booster RF cavity system of SSRF. Now he is leading the design and construction of total SXFEL Linac system.

Wencheng Fang, Dr. (male) is deputy leader of Linac group at SINP, and his research is mainly focused on RF structure for Linac, in particular high gradient accelerating structure for compact FEL. He is responsible for X-band and C-band accelerating structure development of SXFEL and future compact hard X-ray FEL.

Relevant publications, products, services (max 5) :

Z. T. Zhao et al., "First lasing of an echo-enabled harmonic generation free-electron laser", Nature Photonics 6, 360–363 (2012)

Gu Qiang et al., "RF gun for an intense THz radiation source", Chinese Physics C (HEP&NP) , 32(8), 657-660, 2008.

Gu Qiang et. al., "RF System for the SSRF Booster Synchrotron", EPAC08, 2008.

W.C. Fang et al, "Design optimization of a C-band traveling-wave accelerating structure for a compact X-ray Free Electron Laser facility", Chinese Science Bulletin, 2011, 56, 32.


SSRF - First third generation light source, which was accomplished in 2009, and has been user operation for five years. This project is supported by Chinese Central Government, Shanghai local government and Chinese Academy of Sciences.

SDUV-FEL - Test facility for R&D of FEL science and technology, such as SASE, HGHG, Cascading HGHG and ECHO. This project is supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, National Natural Science Foundation of China and Chinese Academy Sciences.

SXFEL - Test facility for R&D of compact FEL. It is supported by Chinese Central Government and Chinese Academy of Sciences.



Full name of participant: Institute of Accelerating Systems and Applications

Short name of Participant: IASA Participant No.: 5


The Institute of Accelerating Systems and Applications (IASA, http://www.iasa.gr) has been founded in 1994 in order to promote research and postgraduate studies in the Greek University system. It is affiliated with three University Departments: Physics, Informatics and Medicine of the National & Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA) and three University Engineering Schools: Electrical & Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering and Applied Mathematical & Physical Sciences of the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA). The National & Kapodistrian University of Athens and the National Technical University of Athens, which equally partake in IASA, are the oldest and most prestigious institutions of higher learning in Greece, having an about 180 years parallel life. IASA is charged with pursuing research and promoting graduate studies in areas where accelerators, and accelerator related technologies play a major role. Its cross disciplinary character and its superb infrastructure in enabling technologies have proven to provide particularly attractive and fertile ground a number of technology driven scientific fronts. IASA is an autonomous legal entity governed by a Board of Directors elected by the governing bodies of the two Universities and it is managed by a directorate appointed by the Senates of the two Universities. Its developmental program and its operating funds are directly provided by the Ministry of Education and through competitive research grants primarily from the Ministry of Development and the European Union. IASA is currently engaged in research projects in the following areas: Accelerator Science/Engineering, Microwave Engineering, Automated Control, Nuclear and Particle physics, Nuclear medicine and Imaging, Scientific Computing, Environmental Physics Telecommunications.

Work Packages in XLS



Evangelos N. Gazis, Prof. (Male) is Professor of Particle Physics at the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) and Deputy Director of the Institute of Accelerating Systems & Applications (IASA). Many years international experience in projects from 1975 to the domains: nuclear & particle physics, radiation gas detectors, detector control systems, accelerator R&D, beam charge dynamics, beam instrumentation, radiation background monitoring with augmented reality, transfer technology activities; having more than 600 publications and 45000 citations. Coordinator of the six university Greek teams participating to the AIDA FP7-Instrstructures project and to the EDUSAFE FP7-People project; where the IASA participates to the work package for the relation with the European industry. National delegate to the CERN Council for the period 2005-2010. He serves from 2008 as head of the ILO at CERN, he is founding member and coordinator (2012) of the HEPTech network (www.heptech.org). He is the coordinator of the working group for the proton therapy facility in Greece.




M. Aicheler et al., "A Multi-TeV linear collider based on CLIC technology: CLIC Conceptual Design Report, CERN-2012-007.

Fanouria et al. "Optics design of Intra-beam Scattering dominated damping rings" CERN-Thesis-2012-368 CLIC-Note-989.

Styliani et al., "Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the damage potential of electron beam and tests of beam loss detector based on quartz Cherenkov radiator read out by a silicon photomultiplier on CLIC Test Facility 3(CTF3)", CERN-Thesis-2011-217.

G. Riddone et al., "Fabrication and validation of the prototype supporting system for the CLIC two-beam Modules", WP 9: Technology for normal conducting higher energy linear accelerators, Task 9.2: NC High Gradient Cavities, EuCARD-CON-2011-042. - 2011.

T. Charilaos et al., "MDT DCS Electronics System", CERN-Thesis-2009-241.


AIDA-FP7 - Advanced European Infrastructures for Detectors at Accelerators, Infrastructures, 2010-2014.

EDUSAFE - Education in advanced VR/AR Safety Systems for Maintenance in Extreme Environments, FP7 People, Marie Curie ITN, 2012-2016.

CLIC - 3 Greek Universities MoU, 2008-2016.

HEPTech - Transfer Technology Network, 2008-Today.

ATLAB-IDEAL SQUARE - Knowledge Transfer Network, 2010-Today.

Full name of participant: Uppsala Universitet

Short name of Participant: UU Participant No.: 6


Uppsala University (UU) is since many years a member of the CLIC/CTF3 collaboration and has since 2006 built up the Two Beam Test Stand (TBTS) at CTF3 devised to demonstrate the feasibility of the CLIC's two-beam acceleration concept. The EuCard and NorduCLIC collaboration with Scandinavian partners from Norway and Finland is enabling us to do research on high-gradient acceleration in Uppsala (DC breakdown) and at the 12 GHz test stands at CERN.

UU is well embedded in the accelerator research activities by participating the 7th European Framework Program EuCARD2, TIARA, ARIES, and AMICE. Apart from the activities related to CLIC, UU is involved in the construction of the European XFEL and European Spallation Source (ESS). The involvement in the ESS led to the construction of FREIA, a major accelerator RF test laboratory in Uppsala with the first task of developing and RF high power testing the superconducting spoke section of the ESS linear proton accelerator.

Work Packages and Tasks in XLS:

Participant. in WP2, WP4, and WP6




Roger Ruber, Dr. (male) has an extensive experience as Project Leader of large accelerator development projects at CERN and in Uppsala. He is an expert in magnet and superconducting technology. He has since more than 20 years been continuously involved in particle and accelerator physics related research at Uppsala University, KEK, CERN and ESS. He has been managing projects within ATLAS construction and instrumentation for Central Solenoid, Barrel Toroid and End-cap Toroid magnets within CLIC/CTF3 leader for the Two-beam Test Stand (TBTS) and at present project manager for FREIA laboratory at Uppsala University.

Magnus Jobs (male): Researcher in microwave engineering

Han Li (female): Researcher, accelerating cavities

Vitaliy Goryashko (male): accelerator physicist, specialized in FEL

Marek Jacewicz (male): researcher, developed the spectrometer at the Xbox2 test stand

Maja Olvegaard (female): accelerator physicist, beam physics and beam instrumentation


“Spectrometers for RF breakdown studies for CLIC” Nucl. Instrum. Methods, A828 (2016), p. 63 "OVERVIEW OF THE ESSnuSB ACCUMULATOR RING", HB2016 proceedings, p. 105-109; "Test Characterization Of Superconducting Spoke Cavities At Uppsala University" conference

paper 2015;

"High Power Microwave Technology in ESS & FREIA" conference paper 2016.


TBTS - Two-beam Test Stand (TBTS) at CTF3, CERN, where the novel CLIC acceleration method with the deceleration (PETS) and acceleration structures is tested. Commissioning of the TBTS with beam and a series of experiments have taken place, resulting in the first demonstration of a measured accelerating gradient well above the CLIC nominal (100 MV/m).

NorduCLIC - The NorduCLIC activities in Uppsala are focused on the 12 GHz standalone klystron-based test stand at CERN which was commissioned during 2013 and is routinely operated to test the performance of the CLIC accelerating structures. UU contributes with advanced diagnostics to determine the position and the energy spectrum of the ejected electrons and ions during a discharge.

FREIA - The FREIA laboratory is a Facility for REsearch Instrumentation and Accelerator Development at Uppsala University, Sweden, constructed recently to develop and test accelerator components.

European XFEL - UU is building the laser heater as a Swedish in-kind contribution to the construction of the XFEL.



Full name of participant: The University of Melbourne

Short name of Participant: UoM Participant No.: 7


The University of Melbourne is Australia’s highest ranking university at number 33 in the world. It has over 40,000 research and undergraduate students and one of the largest physics departments in Australia. The Experimental Particle Physics group has been a long time member of the ATLAS Collaboration at CERN. Since 2010 as part of the Australian Collaboration for Accelerator Science the university has been a member of the CLIC Collaboration and in 2016 joined the FCC Collaboration, both at also at CERN.

Work Packages and Tasks in XLS



Geoffrey Taylor, Dr. (PhD, male): is a Distinguished Professor and Director of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Particle Physics at the School of Physics. He leads Australia’s collaboration in particle physics at CERN and KEK with the ATLAS and BELLE II detector development and data analysis. He is the current Chair of the Asian Committee for Future Accelerators.

Mark Boland, Dr. (PhD, male): is an expert on accelerators and light sources and is a founding member of the Australian Synchrotron Project starting in 2003. He is an honorary Associate Professor at the University of Melbourne where he teaches accelerator physics and supervises graduate research students. He is the Australian Team Leader in the CLIC and FCC Collaboration at CERN.

Roger Rassool, Dr. (PhD, male): is an Associate Professor and lecturer at the School of Physics and has lead research projects into particle and x-ray detector developments at light sources. He is the Director of the Australian Collaboration for Accelerator Science.

Relevant publications, products, services (max 5)

T. K. Charles, D. M. Paganin, A. Latina, M. J. Boland, and R. T. Dowd, Current-horn suppression for reduced coherent-synchrotron-radiation-induced emittance growth in strong bunch compression, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams, accepted 13 March 2017.

Charles, T., Paganin, D., Boland, M. et al. RF phase jitter consideration in bunch compression. In Proceedings of IPAC’16 (2016).

Boland, M. J., Tan, Y. E. and Zhu, D. Layout options for the AXXS injector and XFEL. In International Particle Accelerator Conference 2015, pp. 1394-1396. Proceedings of IPAC2015, Richmond (2015).

Wootton, K. P., Boland, M. J. and Rassool, R. P.: Measurement of ultralow vertical emittance using a calibrated vertical undulator. Physical Review Special Topics: Accelerators and Beams, 17(11):112802 (2014).

Sobott, B. A., Broennimann, C., Schmitt, B. et al.: Success and failure of dead-time models as applied to hybrid pixel detectors in high-flux applications. Journal of Synchrotron Radiation, 20(2) (2013).



Relevant previous projects ( max 5)

Australian Synchrotron – Design, construction and operation of the 3 GeV light source in Melbourne, Australia, 2003-2017.

CLIC – Modelling of emittance growth and measurements to demonstrate the design vertical emittance of the damping rings of the Compact Linear Collider (CLIC).

Silicon Strip and Hybrid Pixel Detectors – Development of detectors for particle and photon beams at high energy physics and light source beamline.

Full name of participant: Australian Nuclear Science and Tecnology Organisation

Short name of Participant: ANSTO-ST Participant No.: 8


The Australian Synchrotron, operated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, is a light source facility that is one of the largest pieces of science infrastructure in the Southern Hemisphere and has been in operation since 2007. It employs 120 staff and has over 4,000 beamline users through the facility in the past seven years. It is run by ANSTO which has over 1200 staff and an annual budget of over $500M. The Australian Synchrotron accelerator complex consists of a 100 MeV Linac, a 100 MeV-3 GeV booster synchrotron and a 3 GeV storage ring, which set a world record low vertical emittance of less than one picometer radians.

The Accelerator Science and Operations group at the Australian Synchrotron have expertise in the operation, dvelopment and use for Accelerator Physics research of the accelerator complex ehich consists of a 100 MeV linac, a 3 GeV booster synchrotron and a 3 GeV storage ring synchrotron radiation source.




Greg LeBlanc, Mr. (male), Head of Accelerator Science and Operations, worked with design, commisioning and operating accelerators as light sources for 22 years and in a management position for 13 years.

Karl Zingre, Mr. (male), Principal RF Engineer is working with high power RF systems for 20 years.

Peter Corlett, Mr. (male), Senior RF Engineer, has over 10 years experience working with RF systems for accelerator applications, specifically LLRF.

David Zhu, Mr. (male), is Accelerator Physicist with 15 years of experience concentrating on modelling of accelerator systems and insertion devices.


Plans for an Australian XFEL using a CLIC X-band Linac, IPAC 2014

Layout Options for the AXXS Injector and XFEL, IPAC 2015


Australian Synchrotron – The majority of the team has been involved in the design, construction and operation of the 3 GeV light source in Melbourne, Australia, 2003-2017.



Full name of participant: Ankara Universitesi

Short name of Participant: UA-IAT Participant No.: 9


Ankara Universitesi (Ankara University) will participate with the Institute of Accelerator Technologies (IAT), a research institute established in 2011 as governmental initiative to fund research and development activities on accelerator technologies in Turkey. It is a public, non-profit institute of Ankara University without independent legal personality from the University.

UA-IAT is in charge of constructing and operating the Turkish Accelerator and Radiation Laboratory facility in Ankara (TARLA), which is an infrared FEL-Oscillator source based on superconducting accelerating structure. The institute is a hub for accelerator based technologies in Turkey and the only institution providing training on accelerator technologies in the country. The institute is also coordinating accelerator based light source users in Turkey within the scope of TARLA, and leading the Turkish Accelerator Center Project which involves the design studies of a synchrotron facility, proton accelerator facility and X-ray FEL facility that are planned to be constructed in Turkey.


Coordinator of WP6

Participant in WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5 and WP7


The tasks allocated to Ankara University will be carried out by the following personnel of the Institute of Accelerator Technology IAT:

Dr. Avni Aksoy (male - [email protected]) is head of the Institute of Accelerator Technologies and the Director of TARLA facility. His expertise is in advanced accelerators technologies and accelerator-based light sources, with specialization in beam physics, beam instrumentation and SC-RF structures. He is the leader of WP6.

Dr. Bora Ketenoğlu (male - [email protected]) is a faculty member at the Physics Engineering Department of Ankara University. He had his post-doctoral research at DESY on undulator systems of XFEL facility.

Dr. Didem Ketenoğlu (female - [email protected]) is a faculty member at the Physics Engineering Department of Ankara University. Her research interests are semiconductor thin films and inelastic x-ray scattering studies on lithium-ion battery materials.

Dr. Zafer Nergiz (male - [email protected]) is faculty member at the Physics Department of Omer Halis Demir University. He has expertise in synchrotron radiation and free electron production mechanisms. He was also involved Compton back scattering design efforts at CERN in the frame CLIC study.

Dr. Mustafa Doğan (male - [email protected]) is faculty member at Electrical-Electronic Engineering program at Baskent University. He has expertise on high power electronics and RF sources.


mailto:[email protected]



A. Aksoy, D. Schulte, Ö. Yavaş, "Beam Dynamics Simulation for The CLIC Drive-Beam Accelerator", Physical Review Special Topics Accelerators and Beams, 14, 084402 (2011)

A. Aksoy, U. Lehnert, "Beam Transport and Bunch Compression at TARLA", Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 762, 54-63 (2014)

B. Ketenoğlu, et al., Transfer of the magnetic axis of an undulator to mechanical fiducial marks of a laser tracker system, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 808 (2016) 135 - 140.

Y. Li, B. Ketenoğlu, J. Pflueger. Girder deformation related phase errors on the undulators for the European X-ray free electron laser, Physical Review Special Topics Accelerators and Beams 18 (2015) 060704.

D. Ketenoğlu, M. Harder et al., Resonant inelastic X-ray scattering spectrometer with 25 meV resolution at the Cu K-edge, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation 22 (2015) 961-967.


TARLA - supported by Turkish Ministry of Development under Grant no: DPT2006K-120470.

TUBITAK (National Research Council)-1001-114E085 grant - L Band High Power RF Pulse Compression System Design and Production.

Electron Accelerator and Radiation Facility, Supported by Ministry of Development of Turkey with Grant No: DPT 2006K-120470, 2016.

Coordinated Access to Light Sources to Promote Standards and Optimizaton (CALIPSO), Project Account Number: 2013ABH67390007, 2013-2015.

Beam Dynamics and Beam-Beam Interactions Studies within the scope of CERN CLIC Electron-Positron Collider, Turkish Atomic Energy Authority, 2013-2017.

Full name of participant: Lancaster University

Short name of Participant: ULANC Participant No.: 10


Ranked in the global top 1%, Lancaster University is recognised as outstanding in research, teaching and the student experience. The engineering department is a member of the Cockcroft Institute, the UK's leading accelerator science institution, and is one of only two Engineering departments working on particle accelerators in the UK. The EMIT group at Lancaster specialises in the design of RF systems for particle accelerators and is a leading group in the design and testing of deflecting and crab cavities. Lancaster Engineering has capabilities in all areas of RF system development and has been involved in the design of deflecting cavities for LHC, CLIC, ILC, VELA and CLARA accelerators. In addition the group has played an important role in the development of the X-band test stations at CERN. ULanc also has experience in the design, and testing of X-band Linacs for security and medical applications. The group has six members of full-time academic staff, seven postdoctoral researchers and seven PhD students.


Participant in WP3




Graeme Burt, Dr. (male): Senior Lecturer in Accelerator Engineering at Lancaster University (2004-present). EMIT Accelerators sub-group leader at Lancaster Engineering department. He is the co-workpackage co-ordinator for HiLumi crab cavities and sits on the Cockcroft Institute Management Committee. He has also been on the Scientific programme committee for the Linac conferences in 2010, 2012 and 2014 and ICFA deflecting mode cavities in 2012. He has had a major role in developing deflecting cavities for LHC, CLIC, ILC, VELA and CLARA. He currently supervises 3 PDRA's and 4 PhD students.


G. Burt et al., “Analysis of Damping Requirements for Dipole Wake-Fields in RF Crab Cavities.” IEEE Trans. Nuclear Science, 54, 5, Oct (2007),1728-1734.

G. Burt et al., "Anti-Crab cavities for the removal of spurious vertical bunch rotations caused by crab cavities" PRST-AB Oct (2008).

G. Burt et al., "Prediction of multipactor in the iris region of deflecting mode cavities, PRST-AB", Jan (2012).

C. Lingwood, G. Burt et al., "Phase Space Analysis of Multipactor Saturation in Rectangular Waveguide, Phys. Plasma", April (2012).

G. Burt et al., "Unwanted mode damping in SRF deflecting/crabbing cavities", NIMA Jan (2013).


EUCARD, A EU wide project for the co-ordination of accelerator R&D, Design and construction of LHC and CLIC crab cavities. Responsible for the LHC crab cavity sub-task.

EUCARD2, A EU wide project for the co-ordination of accelerator R&D, Further development of the high power X-band distribution and control system for CLIC crab cavities

HiLumi, FP7 Design study of the LHC luminosity upgrade, Development of compact SRF crab cavities for the LHC luminosity upgrade. WP co-ordinator and task leader. Also on the steering committee and collaboration board.



Full name of participant: VDL ETG Technology & Development B.V.

Short name of Participant: VDL ETG Participant No.: 11


VDL ETG is a turn-key supplier to develop, produce, assemble and install mechatronic modules, machines and production lines for both individual and repetitive (production expansion) projects. The company is world-wide active in a wide variety of market segments ranging from Food, Medical, New Electronics, Personal Care, Science & Technology, Semiconductors to Solar & Energy. VDL ETG Precision Technology, a business unit of VDL ETG, is specialized in the (co)development of high precision parts, sub-assemblies, prototypes and modules. These products require high-/ultra-precision turning & milling, special measurements, and heat & surface treatments. The defined production strategy determines yield, cycle time, and cost of ownership. Our strength is to rapidly translate highly innovative, complex product designs into tangible products ready to enter small series production. Flexibility, craftsmanship, and top-notch machines are key features of our organization. The proto-typing and precision parts business unit typically serves the markets of analytical, high-end semiconductor, accelerator, satellite, and fundamental research applications. VDL ETG is involved with CERN (CLIC) for already many years and is well aware of the manufacturing challenges. VDL ETG is able to translate functional specifications into designs suitable for volume manufacturing. The scope and objectives of the XLS proposal matches our added value from experience and industrial point of view.




X.J.A. Janssen, Dr. (Male): PhD in App. Physics, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. Skilled in design and realization of experiment specific (prototype) instrumentation, especially including consideration of the concepts’ attainability from the physics as well as manufacturing point of view. Furthermore: micro/nano-fabrication clean room processes; Automation of experiments/instruments including C++, Labview and Matlab; Basic electronics knowledge including the Casimir Research School course “Electronics for Physicists’; Project management and communication/presentation both in oral and written form for a scientific/professional and general audience.

Patents:

- Biosensor with quadrupole magnetic actuation system, WO2010044006, 2009.

- Biosensor system and method for determining the properties of a magnetic particle, WO2010041178, 2009.

- Sensors with high frequency AC magnetic fields, WO2009037636, 2008.

- Measuring agglutination parameters, WO2008075285, 2007




X.J.A. Janssen et al., "Electromagnetic torque tweezers: a versatile approach for the measurement of single molecule twist and torque, Nano Letters, 12, 3634-3639, 2012.

X.J.A. Janssen et al., "Torsional stiffness of a protein pair determined by magnetic particles", Biophysical Journal, 100, 2262-2267, 2011.

X.J.A. Janssen et al., "The rotating particles probe: a new technique to measure the interaction between protein-coated particles and a substrate", Colloids and Surfaces A, 373, 88-93, 2011.

X.J.A. Janssen et al. "Controlled torque on super-paramagnetic beads for functional biosensors", Biosensors and Bioelectronics 24, 1937-1941, 2009.

X.J.A. Janssen et al. "On-chip manipulation and detection of magnetic particles for functional biosensors", Biosensors and Bioelectronics 23, 833-838, 2008.


VDL ETG has an extensive track-record in the fabrication of parts for various particle accelerators world-wide including:

Final machining of the RF-parts of the gun for the SwissFEL.

Fabrication (including brazing of the assembly and RF-tuning) of the prototype BOC Pulse compressor for the SwissFEL.

Machining of the “J-couplers” (prototypes and full series) for the SwissFEL.

Machining of the RF-cavities for various (prototype and partial series) C-band accelerating structures for SwissFEL.

Fabrication (including brazing) of various parts for CERN CLIC e.g. cavities, splitters, RF-waveguide structures, bidirectional couplers, high-power loads

Full name of participant: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

Short name of Participant: TU/e Participant No.: 12


TU/e is the university of the region Eindhoven, technological heart of The Netherlnands, also known as Brainport. Brainport is a breeding ground for innovation and home of world class high-tech companies and research institutes such as ASML, Philips, FEI Company, VDL en NXP. They collaborate with TU/e to make the region into a hotspot of innovative top technology. TU/e is home to the national center for Plasma Physics and Radiation Technology. The TU/e groep Coherence & Quantum Technology (CQT) is part of this center and specialized in electron gun physics and design, charged particle tracking simulations, beam manipulation, and ultrafast electron diffraction and microscopy.


Participant in WP3




O. J. Luiten, Prof. (male), 1993 PhD thesis University of Amsterdam, "Lyman-alpha spectroscopy of magnetically trapped atomic hydrogen"; 1994-1997 postdoc at Space Research Organization Netherlands (SRON), Utrecht, working on superconducting X-ray detectors; 1997-1998 physics engineer at ASML Company, Veldhoven, Netherlands; 1998-present Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e), Dept. of Applied Physics, plasma and accelerator physics; 2011-present group leader Coherence and Quantum Technology at TU/e.


F.B. Kiewiet, "Generation of high-brightness relativistic electron bunches", PhD thesis 2003, TU/e; X. Stragier, "Towards external injection in laser wakefield acceleration", PhD thesis 2011, TU/e;

W.J. Engelen et al., "High-coherence electron bunches produced by femtosecond photoionization", Nat. Commun. 4, 1693 (2013);

W.P.E.M. Op 't Root et al., "Single-cycle surface plasmon polaritons on a bare metal wire excited by relativistic electrons", Nat. Commun. 7, 13769 (2016);

T. van Oudheusden et al., “Compression of subrelativistic space-charge-dominated electron bunches for single-shot femtosecond electron diffraction", Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 2 (2010).


FOM Physics for Technology “Ultra-bright terahertz source based on compact electron accelerators”(granted in 2004);

FOM FSTO Projectruimte “Ultra-cold electron bunches” (granted in 2004);

NWO Vernieuwingsimpuls VICI “Exploring extreme beam regimes for femtosecond electron imaging” (granted in 2007);

FOM-FEI Industrial Partnership Program “Foundations for faster electron microscopy” (granted in 2013).



Full name of participant: Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare

Short name of Participant: INFN Participant No.: 13


INFN is a research institute aimed to the study of the fundamental constituents of matter, which conducts theoretical and experimental research in the fields of sub-nuclear, nuclear, astroparticle and particle accelerator physics. This requires the use of cutting-edge technologies and instrumentation, which the INFN develops both in its own laboratories, and in collaboration with industries and institutions from all over the world. The Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati (LNF) is one of the four main laboratories of INFN. INFN has also addressed its R&D to linac-based Free Electron Lasers (FEL), high brightness photo-injectors and accelerators for medical applications. Recently, new effort is devoted also to new acceleration techniques in the framework of the SPARC_LAB test facility at LNF. INFN is also the Association leader of the Eurogammas Consortium composed by European public Institutions (INFN, University of Rome "La Sapienza" and CNRS) and Private Companies (ACP S.A.S., Alsyom S.A.S., Comeb Srl and ScandiNova Systems AB). The Consortium is responsible for the construction of the Gamma Beam System that will be built in Magurele (Bucharest, Romania) in the context of the ELI-NP Research Infrastructure.


Coordinator of WP3





Massimo Ferrario, Dr. (male) born in 1960, is currently Senior Scientist at INFN and coordinator of the SPARC_LAB facility at the Frascati INFN Laboratories. In the last 20 years he has been working in the field of high brightness photoinjectors, free electron lasers and advanced acceleration concepts like plasma accelerators. He has collaborated in the design of the LCLS and TESLA X_FEL injectors. In the framework of the EUROFEL collaboration he has been task leader of the WP1 “Injector” Design Study Group. He is now coordinator of the INFN contribution to the EU Design Study EuPRAXIA and chairman of the EuPRAXIA Governing Board. He is a member of the CERN Accelerator School (CAS) and the United State Particle Accelerator School (USPAS) where he has given several lectures about the Physics of High Brightness Beams. He is also teaching Accelerator Physics at the University of Roma “La Sapienza”.

Cristina Vaccarezza, Dr. (female) born in 1961, graduated in physics at the University of Rome La Sapienza, currently Staff Scientist at Frascati INFN Laboratories. Former head of DAFNE Linac is presently spoke-person for the SPARC-LAB X-ray Thomson Source and leader of the Linac Beam Dynamics Working Group for the ELI-NP-GS Proposal. After a first ten years’ experience in the study of the collective effects such as electron cloud and ion trapping for the electron-positron collider DAFNE, in the last 13 years has dealt with the beam dynamics of high brightness beams in RF Linacs for driving FEL X-Ray Sources as well Compton back scattering based facilities. She is actually leader of the working package WP1-Electron Beam Dynamics and the working group WG4-Machine Commissioning for the ELI-NP GBS project.

Alessandro Gallo, Dr. (male, Napoli 1963) got his degree in Physics in 1988 at the University of Milan with a thesis on the RF controls for the INFN superconducting cyclotron presently in operation at the National Laboratory of Catania. He is presently Senior Scientist at the INFN National LABs of Frascati, leading the RF group of the Accelerator Division. During his career he has always worked on RF systems for accelerators, especially for lepton circular colliders. His experience extends also to accelerator diagnostics based on RF techniques, and more recently to facility synchronization at the femto-second scale.

He is member of the Advisory Committee of the CERN Accelerator School, and he has given lectures on RF topics on various courses organized by CAS. He has been contract professor at University of Rome "La Sapienza" teaching Classical Physics at the Engineering faculty for about 10 years. He has collaborated with University of Pavia for a Master Course of Particle Accelerator for Oncological Hadrotherapy. He is presently contract professor at Physics faculty of the “Università degli Studi Roma Tre” to teach a “Particle Accelerators” course.

David Alesini, Dr. (PhD, male) got is PhD in “Applied Electromagnetism and Electro-physical science” at the University of Rome “La Sapienza” in 2003 with a dissertation on “Beam Control and Manipulation with Microwave Devices in Particle Accelerators”. He his staff of the Accelerator Division at LNF-INFN in Frascati where his is head of the “Vacuum group” since 2009. For 18 years he is working on physics and technology of particle accelerators and, in particular, on beam dynamics, beam coupling impedances, accelerators operation, RF structures design, realization and test such as injection/extraction kickers, RF deflectors and accelerating structures. He proposed and designed several new devices now in operation in different particle accelerators. He has been involved,

mainly, in the INFN projects DANE and SPARC at LNF and CTF3 project at CERN. He has been

Deputy Responsible of the operation of the DANE collider from 2006 to 2009 and, in the framework of the ELI-NP Gamma Beam System, in construction in Magurele (Bucharest, Romania), he is now responsible of the work package on RF structures and of the overall LINAC as Deputy Machine Leader. He published about 200 papers on international journals and conference



proceedings.

Luca Serafini, Dr. (male) (1957) Senior Scientist at INFN/Milan, Scientific coordinator of ELI-NP-GBS, Project leader of STAR, faculty member of PhD School on Accelerator Physics at University of La Sapienza in Rome. Expert of high brightness electron beams, FEL’s, Inverse Compton Sources and hadron-photon colliders for QED experiments and secondary beam generation.

Riccardo Pompili, Dr. (PhD, under 35, male), born in 1985. After his master degrees at the University of Rome “La Sapienza” he has got his Ph.D. in 2013 at the University of Rome Tor Vergata with a work on development of a non-intercepting and single-shot longitudinal beam diagnostics based on the Electro-Optic Sampling. His formation is mainly about particle and accelerator physics After a two years’ post-doc at LNF, he is currently a staff researcher in the same institution working on longitudinal diagnostics and on beam dynamics simulation. In 2015 he was awarded with the young scientist prize by the Italian Society of Synchrotron Light (SILS).


M. Ferrario et al., Direct Measurement of the Double Emittance Minimum in the Beam Dynamics of the Sparc High-Brightness Photoinjector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 234801 (2007).

Two Color Free-Electron Laser and Frequency Beating, V. Petrillo et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 264801 (2013).

M. Venturini et al., “Dynamics of longitudinal phase-space modulations in an rf compressor for electron beams”, Phys.Rev.ST Accel.Beams 13 (2010) 080703

E. Chiadroni et al., The SPARC linear accelerator based terahertz source, Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 094101 (2013).

D. Micieli et al., Compton sources for the observation of elastic photon-photon scattering events, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 19, 093401 (2016)


SPARC_LAB facility, INFN

EUROFEL, FP7 EU project

EuPRAXIA, H2020 EU Design study

ELI-NP-GBS Project

EUCARD_ANAC2, FP7 EU project


http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.264801


Full name of participant: Kyma S.r.l.

Short name of Participant: Kyma Participant No.: 14


Kyma was established in August 2007 by Elettra Sincrotrone Trieste S.C.p.A. (E-ST), with the primary purpose to design, realize and install the undulators for the FERMI@Elettra project, namely the new Free-Electron Laser, at the time being built at the E-ST site in Basovizza, Trieste, Italy. Kyma has received in 2007 from Elettra Sincrotrone Trieste a twenty-five years know-how on the development and realization of insertion devices, which has been since then greatly developed, thanks to the industrial approach. All the insertion devices for FERMI project were successfully delivered on time, on specs, on budget.

In few years since its establishment (2007), Kyma became a reference supplier in the light source community. With almost fifty insertion devices designed and manufactured (plus sixty small “phase shifters”), Kyma is now recognized as a qualified partner for the design and development of this kind of equipment.

A strategic choice of the management makes Kyma the only company in the world whose unique business is the design, manufacturing and characterization of insertion devices and this decision allows Kyma’s organization and personnel to fully concentrate their attention and ever growing know-how on insertion devices.

The company mission is therefore focused on insertion devices (undulators and wigglers) and its vision is to be able to supply equipment to any light source facility in the world.






Raffaella Geometrante, Dr. (PhD, female) is the General Manager of Kyma. She is a Mechanical Engineering with a Ph.D. Material Science and Engineering. She supports the Board of Directors in working-out short, medium and long period strategies. She sets the guidelines helping the Board of Directors in definition and implementation of the chosen strategies. She coordinates all Kyma running projects with the aim of guaranteeing efficiency and profitability of Kyma goals. She coordinates all activities concerning risk assessment of Quality, Environment, Safety and Health, Information Security, Administrative Responsibility and Social Accountability.

From 2008 through 2011, she was deputy for Installation for FERMI@Elettra. Responsible for short/long term installation scheduling, she supervised all the installation phases.

Tadej Milharcic (male) is Kyma Chief Operative Officer. He is a Control system and software Electronic and Control Engineer. He is responsible for development and manufacturing of insertion devices for particle accelerators, with the aim of constantly improving undulators’ performances. He has been working on all Kyma undulators’ projects, since from its establishment and is the developer of simulation tools for design and optimization of Kyma’s undulators.

Mirko Kokole (male) is the Kyma Chief Technical Officer and Head the Magnetic Measurement lab. He is a physicist and an expert in Magnetic design and measurements. He is responsible of the achievement of the final magnetic performances of all Kyma Undulators. He has been working in Kyma since from its establishment and is the responsable of simulation analyses for design and optimization of all Kyma’s undulators.

Jure Pockar (male) is Kyma Project Technical Leader. He is a mechatronic engineer with a solid and long experience in the automotive business. His expertise is into developing an industrial product out of a prototype/ laboratory idea and he looks forward to applying these skills for new undulators’ prototype.


M. Kokole, R. Geometrante et. al., “Construction of CHESS compact undulator magnets at Kyma”, SPIE Conference Proceeding, Malmo, Prague, May 2015.

M. Kokole et. al., “Magnetic characterization of FEL-1 Undulators for the FERMI@ELETTRA FEL”, FEL 2010, Malmo, Sweden, August 2010.

M. Kokole et. al., “Magnetic characterization of FEL-2 Undulators for the FERMI@ELETTRA FEL”, FEL 2010, Malmo, Sweden, August 2010.

T. MIlharcic, M. Kokole et. al, “Characterization of pure permanent magnet blocks for Undulators in 4th- Generation Light Sources”, FEL 2009, Liverpool, UK, August 2009.


U-CHESS: Nine (9) CHESS Compact Undulators (CCUs) for the U-CHESS project.

FERMI@Elettra: 16 Elliptically Polarizing Undulators and 2 Linearly Polarizing Undulators for FERMI@Elettra Projects.

European XFEL: 30 Hybrid Permanent Magnet Phase Shifters for the European XFEL

NSLS-II: 5 Elliptically Polarizing Undulators for NSLS-II Brookhaven National Lab.



Full name of participant: University of Rome "La Sapienza"

Short name of Participant: SAPIENZA Participant No.: 15


The Department of Basic and Applied Sciences for Engineering at Sapienza University of Rome (SBAI) offers a wide variety of research activities and teaching at all levels. It was created by joining the Department of Mathematical Models and Methods for Applied Sciences, the Department of Energy and the Department of Engineering Chemistry Materials Environment. One of the groups of the department is specialized in the field of applied electromagnetism and accelerator physics. It has competences in design, construction and radiofrequency measurements of accelerating devices. The group has designed and fabricated linear accelerating and deflecting structures from S-band to X-band frequencies for both Travelling wave (TW) and Standing wave (SW) structures.


Participant in WP3


Luigi Palumbo Prof. (male) is Director of the Department of Basic and Applied Sciences for Engineering. He is coordinator of the European Consortium EuroGammaS for the construction of the electron source “Gamma Beam System”, financed by the EU in the framework of the new European Research Infrastructures. He has been Director of the SPARX-FEL project, and has been responsible of several projects of INFN regarding accelerator physics. His research interests are beam dynamics, FEL-physics and high-brightness beams. He is co-author of more than 90 papers on international, peer reviewed journals and of more than 160 contributions to international conferences.

Luca Ficcadenti, Dr. Ing. (PhD, male), researcher at INFN, expert designer of devices for accelerators, in particular on the design, development, and implementation of accelerating or deflecting devices for linear or circular accelerators operating from the S-band to X-band, studies of parasitic effects in such devices. He is co-author of 11 papers on international, peer reviewed journals and of more than 50 contributions to international conferences.

Andrea Mostacci, Dr. Ing. (PhD, male), is Assistant Professor at Department of Basic and Applied Sciences for Engineering. He stated his research activity studying the electromagnetic interaction between particle beams and different accelerator devices and in the design and optimization of those devices (both passive and active). Since 2006, he joined the commissioning and development of high brightness electron Linacs for FEL, THz and Compton sources at INFN-LNF. He is co-author of 76 papers on international, peer reviewed journals and of more than 100 contributions to international conferences.

Dr. Bruno Spataro (male), Bruno Spataro, senior scientist of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), has been mainly devoted to the development and manufacture of components of both linear and circular accelerators. His specific expertise is on the design and construction of the accelerating structures from S band and X-band frequencies, compact hybrid accelerators, linear accelerators for protons, studies on the coupling impedances for LHC and SPS machines at Cern (Geneve) and Karlsruhe (Anka), W-band accelerating structures at SLAC (National Accelerator Laboratory). He is co-author of 63 papers on international, peer reviewed journals and of more than 140 contributions to international conferences.




V.Dolgashev, S. Tantawi, Y.Higashi and B. Spataro "Geometric dependence of radio-frequency breakdown in normal conducting accelerating structures", Applied Physics Letters 97, 171501 (2010);

B.Spataro, D.Alesini, V.Chimenti, V.Dolgashev, Y. Higashi, M. Migliorati, A. Mostacci, R. Parodi, S.G. Tantawi and A.D. Yeremian " High power comparison among brazed, clamped and electroformed X-band cavities", NIM-A-657 (2011) 88-93;

B.Spataro, D.Alesini, V.Chimenti, A. Haase, S.G. Tantawi, Y. Higashi, C. Marrelli, A. Mostacci, R. Parodi and A.D. Yeremian " Technological issues and high gradient test results on X Band Molybdenum accelerating structures, NIM-A-657 (2011) 114-121;

B.Spataro,A.Valloni, D. Alesini, N. Biancacci, L. Faillace, L. Ficcadenti, A Fukusawa, L. Lancia, M. Migliorati, A. Mostacci, B. O’Shea, L. Palumbo, J.B. Rosenzweig and A. Yakub " RF properties of an X-band Hybrid Photo-injector", NIM-A-657 (2011) 107-113;

D.Alesini, G.Di Pirro, L.Ficcadenti, A.Mostacci, L.Palumbo, J.Rosenzweig, C.Vaccarezza, “RF Deflector design and measurements for longitudinal and transverse phase space characterization at SPARC”, NIM-A-568 (2006), 488-502.


TIARA - Test Infrastructure and Accelerator Research Area

EuroFEL - European FEL design study

CRISP - Cluster of Research Infrastructure for Synergies in Physics

EUPRAXIA - EUropean Plasma Research Accelerator with eXcellence In Applications

ELI - Extreme Light Infrastructure

Full name of participant: Agenzia Nazionale per le Nuove Tecnologie, l'Energia e lo Sviluppo

Economico Sostenibile ENEA

Short name of Participant: ENEA Participant No.: 16


Our group pioneered the development of Free Electron Lasers (FEL) since from the beginning. We have built our track record and expertise in the following fields: FEL design, realization and applications; Undulators design and development, Accelerator advanced technologies, Coherent intense radiation sources, Microwave cavities, Laser optics. In most of these cases, our group contributed from analytical Start-2-End simulations through realization and applications.


Coordinator of WP5

Participant in WP1, WP6, and WP7




Giuseppe Dattoli, Dr. Director (male), Physicist, 2000-Today: Principal Investigator of the SPARC ENEA group; 1994: FEL Prize; 1989-Today: ENEA Research Director.

Federico Nguyen, Dr. (PhD, male), 2014-Today: ENEA Staff Resarch Scientist; 2012-2014: Senior Research Associate at the LIP (Portugal) Laboratory in the CMS experiment at LHC, contributing to

Higgs boson studies with -leptons; 2004: PhD in Physics on precision measurements of hadron cross

sections and of the DANE collider luminosity, at the INFN-Frascati Laboratories.

Alberto Petralia, Dr. (male), Researcher, 2010-Today: ENEA Staff Resarch Scientist; 2013-Today: Coordinator of the undulator line of the FEL at SPARC_LAB, INFN-Frascati Laboratories.


A. Petralia et al., "Two-Color Radiation Generated in a Seeded Free-Electron Laser with Two Electron Beams", Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 014801 (2015).

F. Ciocci et al., "Two Color Free-Electron Laser and Frequency Beating", Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 264801 (2013).

R. Bartolini et al., "Suppression of the Sawtooth Instability in a Storage Ring by Free-Electron Laser: An Example of Nonlinear Stabilization by Noise", Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 134801 (2001).

G. Dattoli, A. Renieri and A. Torre, "Lectures on the Free Electron Laser Theory and Related Topics", ISBN 978-981-02-0565-2 (1993).

G. Dattoli et al., "Progress in the Hamiltonian picture of the free-electron laser", IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics 17, 1371 (1981).


EuPRAXIA EU network programme, 2015.

Coherent AutoResonance Maser at the ENEA-Frascati Research Center, 2015.

Free Electron Laser Virtual Lab, 2013.

SPARC_LAB at the INFN-Frascati Laboratories, 2000.

Free Electron Laser Project, University of California Santa Barbara, 1990.



Full name of participant: Consorcio para la Construccion Equipamiento y Explotacion del

Laboratorio de Luz Sincrotron

Short name of Participant: ALBA-CELLS Participant No.: 17


ALBA-CELLS was incorporated by agreement between the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Spanish Government and the Generalitat de Catalunya (Regional Government of Catalonia) on March 14 2003, and its purpose is the construction, equipment and later exploitation of a synchrotron light laboratory.

The main tasks, as defined in the ALBA – CELLS Strategic Plan are:

Enhance expertise and promote the utilization of Synchrotron Light by working with the Spanish and international scientific communities;

Keep itself at the forefront of Synchrotron Light Science by conducting and enabling competitive research and providing the most advanced SL technologies;

Provide a state of the art Synchrotron Light service to the scientific and industrial communities and operate the ALBA facility with the highest efficiency, and with a clear user-oriented policy.

Provide a multidisciplinary environment that fosters innovation through scientific and technical collaboration, mainly in the Synchrotron Light, accelerator sciences and related topics, always having the user community as a reference;

Foster industrial involvement and partnerships, both using synchrotron light as a tool, developing instrumentation therein and doing technology transfer, thus promoting commercial opportunities and economic development, both in large and small-medium size industries;

Promote the optimization of resources by offering the complementary capabilities developed at ALBA to other scientific and technological institutions via collaborative agreements;

Contribute to the training of a highly skilled work force that will feed back into science, industry and society;

Actively participate in the development of the public perception of Science, and;

Collaborate across borders to promote the exchange of people and ideas.

ALBA-CELLS Accelerator team is the first group within Spain which has dealt with the design, construction and operation of a complex accelerator infrastructure and has built up experience in all its technologies. It is now an active member of international collaborations for state of the art accelerator physics and technology, offering key contributions to new synchrotron light facilities or other accelerator based projects.

ALBA-CELLS has acquired and developed important know-how in the management of large scientific projects and follows best practice, with the capability to integrate and develop new equipment into a complex facility. CELLS has as well developed infrastructures and laboratories during the ALBA construction, like magnetic measurements, RF power, vacuum system, diagnostics and metrology laboratories, that are now available for future developments, and for establishing collaborations with other institutions, offering and sharing their utilization.

ALBA-CELLS RF Group -lead by Ms. Angela Salom- and the Linac Group –lead by Ms. Dr Raquel Muñoz- have an ample know-how in their respective fields acquired during the design, commissioning and operation of the ALBA accelerators.


Participant in WP1, WP2, WP3, WP5, WP6, and WP7




Francis Perez, Dr. (PhD, male), Coordinator ALBA contribution, Insertion Devices ALBA Coordinator, Accelerator’s Division Head (since 2012) of the ALBA synchrotron, Barcelona, Spain; PhD in Physics, Materials Science: Magnetism and Superconductivity, 20 years experience in accelerators, Involved deeply, from the very starting design phase, in the construction, commissioning and operation, in two synchrotron light sources projects, ANKA in Germany (1996 – 2004) and ALBA in Spain (2004 – 2012), In both projects as a Head of Radiofrequency and Diagnostics Sections. He has also been involved in the organization of several international meetings, workshops and conferences, as member of the organizing committees. He has been also member of several advisory committees, nowadays member of the ESRF Upgrade APAC and SESAME TAC.

Angela Salom, MSc. (female), coordinator RF development for the project, head of the RF Group of the Accelerator Division of ALBA since 2012, MSc in Industrial Engineering. Specialized in electronics, MSc in Generation and Applications of Synchrotron Radiation, years experience in RF systems for accelerators and LLRF control systems, involved from starting phase in construction, commissioning and operation of ALBA synchrotron light source. Design, construction and commissioning of LLRF systems of ALBA, Maxlab and Solaris synchrotron light sources. Design of new Digital LLRF systems for Diamond Light Source, Sirius (Brazilian Light Source) and IFMIF-EVEDA. Involved in upgraded of digital LLRF for LEIR accelerator at CERN and LLRF in Fermi@Elettra.

Raquel Muñoz, Dr. (PhD, female), coordinator electron gun and Linac development for the project, head of the Linac Group of the Accelerator Division of ALBA. Since 2009, responsible of the Linac operation of the ALBA Synchrotron, and part of the team involved in the commissioning and operation of the ALBA booster and storage ring. Physics Degree at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain. One year stage at Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Heidelberg, Germany. Relativistic time dilation tests at Test Storage Ring. PhD in Physics at Universität Mainz, Germany. Standard Model tests at the research neutron source FRM-II in Munich.


R.Muñoz, JM. Gómez, F. Pérez. Implementation of Single Klystron Working mode at the ALBA Linac. Proc. IPAC 2014, Dresden, Germany

R.Muñoz, JM. Gómez, F. Pérez. Operation and Improvements of the ALBA Linac. Proc. LINAC 2014, Geneva, Switzerland.

A. Salom, F. Perez, B. Bravo, J. Marcos. ALBA LLRF Upgrades to Improve Beam Availability. Proc. IPAC2015, Richmond, VA, USA.

F. Toral, C. de la Morena, D. Gavela, I. Podadera, D. Regidor, M. Weber, B. Bravo, R. Fos, J.R. Ocampo, F. Pérez, A. Salom, P. Solans. High Power Testing of the First Pre-Buncher for LIPAC. Proc. IPAC2015, Richmond, VA, USA.

A. Salom, F. Perez. Delivery of a LLRF for the DIAMOND Light Source, 2016. Collaboration Agreement ALBA-DIAMOND.




Collaboration with CLIC Design team – CERN for the development of innovative diagnostics devices for beam size measurement using synchrotron light (2015-2018).

Operation of a 3rd Generation Light Source, maintaining high levels of reliability in terms of beam orbit stability (100 nm) and collective effects.

ARIES, Horizon 2020 Programme, Grant Agreement 730871 (2017-2020). F. Perez, Task Leader in the ADA Work Package 8.

EuroCirCol, Horizon 2020 Programme, Grant Agreement 654305 (2015-2019). F. Perez, Leader of Work Package 4.

oPAC, EU FP7, Marie Curie Initial Training Network project - Grant No 289485 (2011-2015). ALBA Participants: F. Perez, U. Iriso, G. Benedetti, Z. Martí.

Full name of participant: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique CNRS

Short name of Participant: CNRS Participant No.: 18


CNRS is a public organisation under the responsibility of the French Ministry of Education and Research. CNRS encourages collaboration between specialists from different disciplines, opening up new fields of enquiry to meet social and economic needs.

LAL is a CNRS Joint Research Unit with Université Paris-Sud will bring their expertise in the project: Operates PHIL photo-injector, and involved in construction of a compact accelerator to be used as an X-ray source (ThomX) and a new high performance electron Linac PRAE.


Participant in WP2, WP3, and WP4




A. Faus-Golfe, Dr. (PhD, female): research scientist at LAL since 2017, currently in charge of FCC studies and PRAE accelerator. She has had more than 70 communications in the main accelerators conferences and 120 publications in the accelerator field. She has participated in 35 Spanish National Project, leading 10 of them, 9 EU projects (CARE, EuroTeV, EUCARD, HL-LHC, PARTNER, EUCARD2, PACMAN OMA, EuroCircol), 2 French projects (IDEX, PRAE) and leading 14 International Collaboration Projects with CERN, INFN-Napoli, LAL, LLR and KEK. She has supervised 10 Master Thesis, 8 PhD theses and she has 3 PhD theses in preparation. She was teaching in specialized schools, the CERN Accelerator School, “Taller de Altas Energias”, and training courses of EU projects as in PARTNER. She is member of the JUAS advisory Board, the EPS-AG (elected), the MAC of XFEL and DESY, the Scientific Advisory Board of the Cockcroft Institute, the Editorial Board of PRAB and the ESS Review Committee. She is chairing the ATF2 Technical Board, the International committee for the Application of Particle Accelerators in Europe and the PACMAN Collaboration board and she is visiting Professorship in Huddersfield University.

M. EL KHALDI, Dr. (PhD, male): Research engineer at LAL since 2011. In the framework of a research collaboration between LAL and the industrial PMB-ALCEN, he is currently in charge as a project coordinator and responsible of scientific studies to develop a high gradient compact S-band TW accelerating section in order to increase the THOMX LINAC energy from 50 MeV to 70 MeV. He is also the responsible of the THOMX storage ring RF system. He has participated in XFEL project. He has supervised 10 master theses and 1 PhD thesis in preparation. He is teaching “RF for accelerators” in master degree at the university of Paris Saclay. He is Elected member of the Scientific Council of LAL(2015-2019) and Elected member of National Committee for Scientific Research – CoNRS – section 01 (2016-2020).

P. Lepercq, Dr. (PhD, male), research engineer at CNRS since 1997. He is currently the head of the PHIL accelerator facility at LAL. He has 20 years of experience in high power RF structures (such as power sources, cavity couplers, RF guns and accelerating structures). He has been involved in the development of three photo-injectors based accelerators (ELYSE, PHIL, THOMX). He worked on the commissioning of the 800 power couplers for the XFEL project. He is also involved in the laser plasma acceleration demonstration at LAL (ESCULAP). He has more than 30 communications and publications in accelerator physics. He has supervised 6 master students and was co supervisor of a Chinese thesis.

B. Mercier, Dr. (PhD, male), research engineer at LAL, head of Vacuum technologies group and surface analysis since ten years. I am a member of the steering committee and training referent of the vacuum technology network of the CNRS interdisciplinary mission for 2 years. I carried out expertise on the simulation, design and realization of ultra-high vacuum chambers mainly in the field of particle accelerators (The SuperB accelerator project, Ion National Accelerator (Ganil), Free-electron laser (Clio), X ray compact source demonstrator (THOMX), Photoinjector test line (PHIL),…) and we made RF electron gun (PHIN gun for CTF3 (CERN) and actually for THOMX photoinjector at LAL). I published two publication as first author in the journal vacuum science and technology JVSTA.




Faus-Golfe and J. Le Duff, NIM A 372 (1996) 6-18

ATF2 collaboration. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014 Jan (24) 112(3):034802

S. Verdu-Andres, et al., Journal of Radiation Research, 2013, 54, i155-i16

M. Alves, et al. “PHIL photoinjector test line”, Journal of Instrumentation (JINST) 8 (01), T01001 (2013).

T. Vinatier et al., Performances of the Alpha-X RF gun on the PHIL accelerator at LAL, Nuclear Instrum. And methods A 797, 222 (2015)


European Collaboration for Accelerator Research and Development EUCARD, Grant Agreement: 7th Framework Programme EU Commission- 227579.

Enhanced European Coordination for Accelerator Research & Development EUCARD2, Grant Agreement: 7th Framework Programme EU Commission- 312453.

European Circular Energy-Frontier Collider Study EuroCirCol, Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme, Grant agreement no. 654305.

Accelerator Research and Innovation for European Science and Society ARIES, INFRAIA-01-2016-2017.

Accelerator and Magnet Infrastructure for Cooperation and Innovation AMICI, H2020-INFRAINNOV-2016-1.

Full name of participant: Karlsruher Institut für Technologie

Short name of Participant: KIT Participant No.: 19


KIT, the Research University in the Helmholtz Association, combines the traditions of a renowned technical university and a major large-scale research facility in a very unique way. It is one of the largest, most prestigious, and leading engineering and technology universities in Germany. KIT hosts the Accelerator Technology Platform (ATP) which comprises the accelerator test facilities ANKA, a storage-ring synchrotron radiation facility, and FLUTE, a compact linear accelerator, both operated by the Institute for Beam Physics and Technology (IBPT).

The KIT-IBPT and the associated Laboratory for Applications of Synchrotron Radiation (KIT-LAS) pursue R&D in the fields of superconducting insertion devices, advanced beam diagnostics and dynamics of ps and fs electron and photon beams. They have recognized expertise in the fields of

Ultra-fast, high-rep-rate, high-resolution direct and indirect, transverse and longitudinal electron bunch diagnostics (development and application)

specialized superconducting undulators for compact light sources (magnet design, beam dynamics and radiation simulation, application)


Participant in WP5




Anke-Susanne Müller, Prof. (female), professor for Accelerator Physics, head of the IBPT. Has 15+ years’ experience in linear and nonlinear beam dynamics and diagnostics techniques.

Erik Bründermann, (male), head of the Department of Accelerator Research at KIT-IBPT. Has 25+ years’ experience in terahertz technology.

Axel Bernhard, (male), Senior Scientist at KIT-IBPT and head of the Novel Radiation Sources Group at KIT-LAS, main contact for CompactLight. Has 20+ years’ experience in synchrotron-light-based research, 10+ year’s experience in developing and applying superconducting undulators.


Müller, A-S. (2010). Accelerator Based Sources of Infrared and Terahertz Radiation. Reviews of Accelerator Science and Technology, 3: 165.

Müller, A-S. (2012). Experimental Aspects of CSR in the ANKA Storage Ring. ICFA Beam Dynamics Newsletter, 57: 154.

Bernhard, A. et. al. (2013) Superconducting Wiggler Prototype for the CLIC Damping Rings. ICFA Beam Dynamics Newsletter 62: 143

Afonso Rodriguez, V., Bernhard, A. et al. (2013), Development of a Non-Planar Superconducting Undulator for the JETI-Laser-Wakefield Accelerator. IEEE Trans. Appl. Superconductivity 23


CLIC: Collaboration member, development and test of a CLIC damping wiggler prototype

EuroCirCol: H2020, beneficiary

ARIES: H2020, beneficiary

Full name of participant: Paul Scherrer Institut PSI

Short name of Participant: PSI Participant No.: 20


The Paul Scherrer Institute, PSI, is the largest research institute for natural and engineering sciences within Switzerland. The Paul Scherrer Institute runs Switzerland's Large research facilities for users from the national and international scientific community, in particular for condensed matter, materials science and biology research. PSI is one of only two locations in the world providing the three complementary probes of synchrotron X-rays, neutrons and muons at one site. Since 2001 PSI offers high brilliant X-rays in the Swiss Light Source (SLS) and starting in 2017 in the hard x-ray Free Electron Laser SwissFEL.


Participant in WP5




Schmidt, Thomas, Dr. (PhD, male), German, studies of physics at University of Dortmund, 1986-1992, PhD 1992-1997 with the realization of a storage ring Free Electron Laser at the DELTA storage ring, University of Dortmund, since 1998 at PSI: Undulator design, procurement, magnetic measurements and operation, Swiss Light Source and SwissFEL, since 2004 Head of Insertion Devices Group

Calvi, Marco Dr. (PhD, male), 15/12/1975, Italian; studies of Electronic Engineering at Polytechnic of Turin 1994-2000, thesis: “Quench propagation in LHC superconducting busbars”; PhD in Physics 2001-2004 at Geneva University, thesis: “Impact of the Mechanical Perturbations of the Performance of the LHC Superconducting Dipole Magnets“; 2004-2006 Research Fellow at CERN, measurements of superconducting magnets of the LHC, modelling of superconducting cables; 2006-2008, EPFL-CRPP Superconducting Cable design, design of a quench detection; since 2008 at PSI, Insertion Devices Group: Undulator design, magnetic measurements, operation of insertion devices for SLS and SwissFEL.


Calvi M. et al, Transverse Gradients in APPLE type undulators, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation, to be published, (2017)

Schmidt T. et al, Undulators for the PSI Sources, Synchrotron Radiation News 28/3 34-38 (2015)

Calvi M .et al, Commissioning Results of the U14 cryogenic undulator at SLS, SRI 2012, 425, 032017, (2013)

Marinucci ., Bottura L., and Calvi M., Integrated analysis of quench propagation in a system of magnetically coupled superconducting coils, Cryogenics 53, 94-106, (2013)

Schmidt T. and Zimoch D., About APPLE II operation, AIP Conference Proceedings 879, 404 (2007)


SwissFEL at PSI: Realization of 25 Insertion Devices for SLS

LHC magnets, coils for ITER: Marco Calvi highly experienced in superconductivity



Full name of participant: Agencia Estatal Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicias

Short name of Participant: CSIC Participant No.: 21


The Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) is the largest public institution dedicated to research in Spain and the third largest in Europe. Belonging to the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness through the Secretary of State for Research, Development and Innovation, its main objective is to develop and promote research that will help bring about scientific and technological progress, and it is prepared to collaborate with Spanish and foreign entities in order to achieve this aim. According to its Statute (article 4), its mission is to foster, coordinate, develop and promote scientific and technological research, of a multidisciplinary nature, in order to contribute to advancing knowledge and economic, social and cultural development, as well as to train staff and advise public and private entities on this matter.

It has a staff of more than 13,000 employees, among these about 3,300 are permanent researchers and about 4,300 are pre- and post-doctoral researchers.

The CSIC has 70 fully own institutes or centres distributed throughout Spain. In addition, it has 53 Joint Research Units with universities or other research institutions. There is also a delegation in Brussels and Rome. CSIC has considerable experience in both participating and managing R&D projects and training of research personnel.

CSIC provides services to the entire scientific community through management of the Singular Scientific and Technological Infrastructures (ICTS) such as Calar Alto Astronomical Observatory, Doñana Biological Station, European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, Hesperides Ocean Research Vessel, Integrated Micro and Nanoelectronics Clean Room, Juan Carlos I Antarctic Base, Max Von Laue-Paul Langevin Institute and Sarmiento de Gamboa Ocean Research Vessel.

In the FP7 EU-Programme CSIC obtained 66 Marie Curie projects with 54 ITN and 28 IAPP. At the present H2020-Programme CSIC participates in 69 Marie Curie projects in which 16 are ITN and 9 are RISE.

The institute of CSIC IFIC has participated in different generations of collider experiments, as DELPHI at the Large Electron Positron collider at CERN and the CDF experiment at the Tevatron in FermiLab. Currently, it is deeply involved in the CLIC accelerator project and also in the program at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), in ATLAS. IFIC has been recognized by the excellence Spanish programme called Severo-Ochoa. In this category, only about 20 Institutes over all Spain and among all science-technological areas have been awarded with the Severo-Ochoa distinction.

The IFIC has been active in instrumentation for accelerators and particle physics experiments and has been contributing to the accelerator and detector R&D for the LHC/HL-LHC, ILC and CLIC.


Participant in WP4




Juan Fuster, Prof. (male), is Professor of Research at IFIC since 1990, vice-director of Technology and Innovation at IFIC and head of the Accelerator Physics Group (GAP). He has been director of IFIC, manager of the Spanish National Program for Particle Physics and Accelerators and Coordinator of the Area of Physics and Technologies of CSIC. He has been responsible for experimental tasks and working groups (DELPHI, ATLAS, ILC) including technical developments, Physics and related accelerator studies. He has been and is member of several international scientific and advisory committees (CERN, IFAE, DESY), member of many Conference Committees, member of the International Committee for future Accelerators, chair of the C11 Commission for Particle and Fields of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, chair of the European Linear Collider study as nominated by the European Committee for Future Accelerators and the Spanish delegate at the OECD Global Science Forum scoping group on Research Infrastructures.

Daniel Esperante, Dr. (PhD, male), Post-Doc researcher, electronics and RF engineer at IFIC since 2011. He is granted with a Marie Curie Individual fellowship for R&D in S-Band high-gradient developments and technical responsible for the construction and development of the High-Gradient RF lab IFIC.

Cesar Blanch, (male), Mechanical and vacuum engineer experienced in building instrumentation and ultra-high vacuum components for accelerators. Knowledge in CAD design, FEM analysis, MolFlow.


N. Catalan et al. "Commissioning of Xbox3: a very high capacity X-band RF test stand".

J. Fuster (member of ed. board) et al., The International Linear Collider Technical Design Reports.

New test facility to perform High-Gradient RF studies in S-Band (2.9985 GHz) and an accelerator Instrumentation lab. The High-Gradient S-Band RF test facility is to be operational in 2018 and will permit high-gradient (15 MW), high-rate (400 Hz) and conditioning of S-Band structures and other components. The instrumentation lab is specialized in testing and characterization of specific devices, mainly using RF and photo detection technology applied to particle beam monitoring, including device ad-hoc test-benches, equipment like Network and Spectrum Analyzer, GHz range Oscilloscope, optical anti-vibration table, precision movers (linear and rotational), vacuum pumps and cooling systems, as well as licensed control and acquisition software like LabVIEW and Matlab. Other resources would be also available like a clean room of class 10.000 and 1000.

Mechanical engineering facility at IFIC: consists of CAD/CAM and FEA computer tools to design and simulate mechanical parts, as well as a workshop suitable for building these parts, which is composed by a CNC (Computer Numerical Control) milling machine, a CNC lathe, two manual milling machines, two manual lathes and other manual machines for mechanizing, welding, etc. In addition, the facility is provided with a metrology room, which consist of a vision CMM, and a contact CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine) suitable for measuring, with or without contact, any part or cross-checking the dimensions of any part made at the workshop with high precision.

The electronic engineering labs directly available at IFIC are: the general electronic lab which stands out mainly in multilayer PCB manufacturing with prototyping and small series production capability, besides offering standard components, delivery and test and measurement equipment.




E-JADE, H2020-MSCA-RISE-2014, No. 645479, Europe-Japan Accelerator Development Exchange Programme, 2015-2018.

IFIC-CSIC Collaboration on CLIC. CERN Collaboration Agreement No. KE2638/BE between IFIC-CSIC and CERN (04/2015-04/2018, IFIC-CERN).

OMA, Optimization of Medical Accelerators, Grant Agreement: Marie Curie Initial Training Networks (ITN) H2020-MSCA-ITN-2015 (Proposal: 675265 — OMA 3/2016-2/2020 Univ. Liverpool, Amsterdam Scientific Instruments, CERN, CNAO, CSIC, GSI, IBA, Univ. Muenchen, MedAustron, PSI, Univ. College London, Univ. Manchester, Univ. Sevilla, Vialux Messtechnik). IP: C. Welch

HGRF-IFIC, High-Gradient RF Lab IFIC, Grant Agreement: Marie Curie Individual Fellowship (IF), H2020-MSCA-IF-2016 (Proposal: 750871 - HGRF-IFIC, U. Valencia). Researcher: D. Esperante.

Spanish national research plan, Contribución a la operación de Atlas y análisis de datos. Investigación y desarrollo (I+D) para futuros aceleradores y estudios de física. Referencia: FPA2015-65652-C4-3-R. 2016-2018. IP: Juan Fuster.

Full name of participant: University of Helsinki - Helsinki Institute of Physics

Short name of Participant: UH/HIP Participant No.: 22


The Helsinki Institute of Physics is very active in carry out and facilitate research in basic and applied physics as well as in physics research and technology development at international accelerator laboratories. The Institute has a proven experience in material science and breakdowns in high-gradient structures, in particular:

development of mechanical design for next generation of CLIC module taking into account the full lifecycle: form manufacturing over assembly, RF-conditioning, transportation, installation, alignment, operation to failure scenarios

Industrial collaboration for development of manufacturing CLIC accelerating structures and other RF components'


Participant in WP4


Markus Aicheler, Dr. (PhD, male), 2010-2012 Fellow at CERN, 2012-2014 Technical coordinator of MeChanICs, 2014-today Co-leader of Accelerator technology project at HIP.


A. Vamvakas et al., "Integration and testing of 3 consecutive CLIC two-beam modules”, Proceedings of IPAC2016, Busan, Korea

A. Moilainen et al., "Finite element model for thermal-structural analysis of CLIC Lab module type 0#2", CLIC note 2017

E. Daskalaki et al., "Study of the dynamic response of CLIC accelerating structures", Proceedings of IPAC2015




MeChanICs (EU FP7 IAPP)

Linking Industry to CERN, Marie Curie

http://research.hip.fi/hwp/acctech/accelerator-technology/m-s-m/

Full name of participant: Stichting Vrije Universiteit University Amsterdam

Short name of Participant: VU Participant No.: 23


The Vrije Universiteit (VU) Amsterdam is one of Europe’s most prominent research-led universities. It is leading in laser techniques to generate EUV and soft-X-ray laser light, which is to be used for FEL seeding. It co-operates the Advanced Research Center for Nanolithography, the launching platform of FEL-NL.The research group of prof. Hoekstra (VU) is embedded in ARCNL, therefore the work and tasks taken up by the group are performed at ARCNL.

The Vrije Universiteit (VU) Amsterdam is partner in the public-private partnership ARCNL (Advanced Research Center for Nanolithography), a Joint Research Unit founded in 2014 together with the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the University of Amsterdam (UvA), and the semiconductor equipment manufacturer ASML.

The research group of prof. Hoekstra (VU) is embedded in ARCNL; the work and tasks taken up by the group in this project will therefore be performed at ARCNL.




Ronnie Hoekstra, prof. dr. ir. (PhD, male) studied Engineering Physics at the University of Groningen and did his PhD research at AMOLF, Amsterdam. As PostDoc at JET and the University of Osnabrück. In 1995 he joined the KVI (University of Groningen) as staff member. In 2004 he was appointed Professor and served as director of the International Research School for Fundamental and Applied Nuclear and Atomic Physics. In 2013 he moved with his group to the Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials (University of Groningen) and is now officially seconded to VU by the University of Groningen. He is also group leader at the Advanced Research Center for Nanolithography (ARCNL, Amsterdam) and leads the FEL‐NL initiative for a Dutch soft‐X‐ray free‐electron laser infrastructure.


T. Schlathölter, …, and R. Hoekstra, Multiple ionization of free ubiquitin molecular ions in extreme ultraviolet free-electron laser pulses, Ang. Chem. Int. Ed. 55 (2016) 10741

A. Rouzée, …, R. Hoekstra, et al., Towards imaging of ultrafast molecular dynamics using FELs, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 46 (2013) 164029


New Dutch project FEL-NL for a compact, high rep rate, soft-X-ray FEL.



Full name of participant: University of Strathclyde

Short name of Participant: USTR Participant No.: 24


The University of Strathclyde is a leading international technological university. It has received multiple awards including ‘UK University of the Year 2013’ and ‘UK Entrepreneurial University of the Year 2014’. It has 3,200 staff with 15,000 undergraduate students and 7.000 postgraduate students.

Adrian Cross and Kevin Ronald, the senior academics in the ABP group, have more than 25 years of research in coherent high power millimetre wave sources. They lead a group with an internationally leading reputation in the field, with full capability for the electronic generation of very high power radiation in the GHz to THz frequency range. This capability covers theory development, numerical simulation and optimization, experimental demonstration and measurement and manufacturing realization. The ABP research group consisting of 5 academics, 10 post-doctoral researchers, 5 PhD students, 1 research technician and 4 visiting scientists is one of the largest university research groups working in the area of high power millimetre waves in the UK.

In 2013 the world’s highest power (10kW), continuously tuneable (88GHz to 102.5GHz) oscillator based on a “fast wave” interaction with an electron beam was demonstrated at Strathclyde. This tuneable oscillator has recently (2017) been turned into an amplifier for future accelerators operating at higher frequencies, as well as other diverse application areas. An earlier breakthrough in fast wave amplifiers led to a particularly highly regarded impact statement for the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) assessment. In this most recent UK government (REF) assessment of the quality of research in UK university departments the research of the ABP group contributed to the excellent result that rated our University of Strathclyde Physics department as the top Physics department in the UK.

The University has invested in an 800m2 internationally leading high power millimetre wave amplifier laboratory for the ABP group located in the new (2015) £90M Technology and Innovation Centre. There is a large group of excellent staff and students who work alongside the professorial and academic staff in a research intensive environment with well-equipped facilities which includes 12.5T Superconducting Cryogen free magnet and £1M of test equipment including 20 GHz multi-channel deep memory digital oscilloscope; high performance 40 GHz spectrum analyser; 1.5 W, 90-96 GHz Quinstar solid-state driver; 2x2 and 2x3 multipliers; wideband 65-500 GHz Vector Network Analyser (VNA); thermionic cathode electron gun; high voltage power supplies; mm-wave diagnostics (£30k); electron beam diagnostics.


Participant in WP3




Adrian W. Cross, Prof. (male), received the B.Sc. degree (Honors) in physics and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, U.K., in 1989 and 1993, respectively. He joined the Atoms, Beams, and Plasmas group at the University of Strathclyde in 1993 as a Research Fellow. From 2002 to 2007 Dr. Cross was an Engineering and Physical Science (EPSRC) Advanced Fellow. He has been involved in various aspects of research on gyrotrons, cyclotron autoresonance masers, free-electron lasers, superradiant sources, gyrotron travelling wave amplifiers and plasma applications.

Kevin Ronald, Dr. (male), was born in Glasgow, U.K. He received the B.Sc. (with honors) and Ph.D. degrees in physics from the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, U.K., in 1992 and 1997, respectively. He is currently a Reader with the Department of Physics, University of Strathclyde). His research interests electrodynamics, microwave amplifiers and oscillators, and muon ionization cooling.

Laurence Nix, Mr. (male), is a final year undergraduate student who is on schedule to achieve a 1st class honors MPhys degree in Physics from the University of Strathclyde. He has expressed an keen interest in carrying out a PhD in high power millimetre wave amplifiers for accelerator applications.

Helen Yin, Dr. (PhD, female) is a physicist who has over 15 years of experience in the area of generation of high power electron beams and high frequency radiation. In 1983 to 1992 she participated in the study, design and commissioning of the pulsed power systems for a 1.5 MeV electron Linear Induction Accelerator at the China Academy of Engineering Physics. She has a first class honours degree in magnetic materials from the Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Department of Solid State Electronics, B.En. and an MSc degree in accelerator physics from the China Academy of Engineering Physics. In 1999 she was awarded her PhD for work on high power Cherenkov maser experiments at the University of Strathclyde. During the past 18 years she has been working on the generation of high power, high frequency, millimetre and sub-millimeter wave sources. She is a numerical and computational modeler with experience of designing and simulating the beam-wave interactions in gyrotron amplifiers.


Bratman V.L., Cross A.W., Denisov G.G., He W., Phelps A.D.R., Ronald K., Samsonov S.V., Whyte C.G. and Young A.R., ‘High-gain wide-band gyro-travelling wave amplifier with a helically corrugated waveguide’, Phys. Rev. Letts, 84, pp2746-2749, 2000.

Whyte C.G., Ronald K., Young A.R., He W., Robertson C.W., Rowlands D.H., and Cross A.W., “Wideband gyro-amplifiers”, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science,.40, pp1303-1310, 2012.

Robertson, C. W., Young A. R., Ronald K., Cross A. W., Whyte, C. G., “Design of a triodelike electron gun for millimetre-wave gyrodevices”, IEEE Trans on Elect. Devices, 59, pp2520-2523, 2012

He W., Donaldson C.R, Zhang L., Ronald K., McElhinney P., and Cross A.W., “High power wideband gyrotron backward wave oscillator towards the terahertz region”, Phys. Rev. Letts, 110, art 165101, 2013.

Garner J.R., Zhang L., Donaldson C.R., Cross A.W. and He W., "Design Study of a Fundamental Mode Input Coupler for a 372 GHz Gyro-TWA I: Rectangular-to-circular Coupling Methods", IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 63, pp. 497-503 (2016).




STFC PIPSS ST/G003521/1 Knowledge Transfer (KT) program “Transfer of enabling high power Ka-band design capability to Industry”. £394k, (2010 -2013)

STFC Challenge Lead Applied Systems grant “Novel Gyro-TWA amplifier for high power mm-wave radar remote sensing”, £150k (2013 – 2015)

STFC follow-on grant, "Development of a W-band gyro-amplifier for high power, wideband, pulsed coherent applications", ST/N002326/1, £81k (2015);

STFC Global Challenge Concepts award "Computational validation of a cusp electron beam for high power broadband Gyro-TWA for Terahertz Security Sensing and Imaging", ST/M007278/1, £62k (2015);

STFC IPS fund, "CW operation of 94GHz Gyro-TWA for telecommunications applications", ST/P001890/1, £450k (2017 - 2020);

4.2. Third Parties involved in the project (including use of third party resources)

Full name of participant: European Organization for Nuclear Research

Short name of Participant: CERN Participant No.: 2

Does the participant plan to subcontract certain tasks (please note that core tasks of the project should not be sub-contracted)?

No

Does the participant envisage that part of its work is performed by linked third parties?

No

Does the participant envisage the use of contributions in kind provided by third parties (Articles 11 and 12 of the General Model Grant Agreement)?

Yes

Full name of Third Party: University of Oslo

Short name of Third Party: Oslo

Description of Third Party

Through its contributions to the CLIC project, Oslo has significant expertise in the design and experimental tests of X-band technology components as well as X-band machine design.

Description of Contribution

Oslo is currently performing numerical studies concerning beam dynamics and radiation generation for compact Free Electron Lasers, in collaboration with beam dynamics experts at CERN. Oslo will contribute to the CompactLight study as a Third Party supporting

WP2: FEL modelling and facility design

WP4: RF unit and linac design

Oslo will provide its contribution free of charge (Article 12). The work will be performed on the beneficiaries premises and require approximately an effort of 0.5 person-months with zero costs for the project and a cost of € 6,000 for OSLO.


A 777431 - XLS Part B Pag 100 of 109

Responsible Scientist

Erik Adli, professor (male), Department of Physics, Oslo University. He has eight years of experience with particle accelerators, and he has authorship and co-authorship of more than 50 articles in this field. He is currently in charge of the accelerator research activities at the High-Energy Physics Section at the University of Oslo. Oslo post-doctoral researchers with accelerator physics experience will also participate in the study.

Full name of participant: Institute of Accelerating Systems and Applications

Short name of Participant: IASA Participant No.: 5


No


No


Yes

Full name of Third Party: National Technical University of Athens

Short name of Third Party: NTUA


The NTUA High Energy Physics team, working at CERN experiments, has a more than 40 years’ experience with gas detectors construction, front-end electronics, data acquisition and detector control systems (DCS). The IASA has a long time, fruitful cooperation for years with the NTUA-HEP team in the ATLAS projects.


The NTUA-HEP team will cooperate with the IASA team to WP3 and WP6. It will in particular support the delivery of:

The R&D control system in the WinCC (PVSS) platform for the beam instrumentation

The DAQ for the beam instrumentation data

The on-line and off-line analysis results of the data taken

NTUA will participate in the project with two Senior Scientists (Professors) and a PhD student, providing 5 person-months of staff effort as in-kind contributions free of charge (Article 12), with a total cost of € 20,000 for the institute. The work will be performed completely on the beneficiary’s premises.

Responsible Scientists

Theodoros Alexopoulos, Prof. (male), Experimentalist in Particle Physics

Stavros Maletzos Prof. (male), Electrical Engineer on Instrumentation & Vacuum Monitoring

Polynikis Tzanis, MSc. (male), PhD student, Applied Physicist


A 777431 - XLS Part B Pag 101 of 109

Full name of Third Party: Athens University Economic & Business

Short name of Third Party: AUEB


The AUEB team has developed a many years’ experience on market survey of innovative products to be commercialised, in the high technology management and liaison with industry. AUEB can therefore contribute fruitfully to the socio-economic impact of the project, the dissemination to the industry and the market survey of innovative products.

The AUEB team has a many years’ experience being involved in many European and international projects, among them to the EDUSAFE – Marie Curie project (2012-2016) within the ATLAS collaboration.


The AUEB team will cooperate with the IASA team in WP1 and WP7. It can in particular support significantly the:

Study of the proposal results dissemination to the industry

Study and proposal for the market survey strategy of the proposal results

Study of the educative strategy of the innovative results of the proposal for the industrialization of them and to other laboratories for use, too.

Integrated study of the socio-economic impact of the proposal

AUEB will participate in the project with a Senior Scientists (Professor) and a PhD student, providing 3.0 person-months of staff effort as in-kind contributions free of charge (Article 12), with a total cost of € 10,000 for the institute. The work will not be performed on the beneficiary’s premises.

Responsible Scientists

Theodoros Apostolopoulos, Prof. (male), Informatics & Business applications

Vassilios Mantzios, (PhD Student, male) in Management Science & Technology

Full name of participant: Stichting Vrije Universiteit University Amsterdam

Short name of Participant: VU Participant No.: 23


No


No


Yes

Full name of Third Party: Advanced Research Center for Nanolithography

Short name of Third Party: ARCNL


A 777431 - XLS Part B Pag 102 of 109


The Advanced Research Center for Nanolithography (ARCNL) is a public-private partnership between the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the University of Amsterdam (UvA), the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) and the semiconductor equipment manufacturer ASML. ARCNL has its own laboratories with equipment and office buildings, located at the Amsterdam Science Park, Amsterdam in The Netherlands. The partners signed a cooperation agreement in which elements like governance, finance, intellectual property is laid down. The contract has duration of 10 years (starting in 2014) with the possibility to extend the collaboration.

The ARCNL focuses on fundamental physics and chemistry involved in current and future key technologies in nanolithography. A large part of the ARCNL research programme is devoted to the production of EUV (Extreme Ultraviolet) light.


The research group of prof. Hoekstra (VU) is embedded in and located at ARCNL, therefore the work and tasks taken up by the group are performed at ARCNL. ARCNL will collaborate closely with VU in the implementation of VU’s tasks in the project, providing their resources (labs, working spaces, etc.) free of charge. In close collaborations with experts at CERN and TU/e they will contribute to the work in

WP6: beam dynamics and start-to-end simulations

WP7: for CompactLight global integration.

They will participate as Third Parties providing in-kind contributions free of charge (Article 12), with an estimated total cost of € 22,500.

Responsible Scientist

Ronnie Hoekstra, prof. dr. ir. (PhD, male) studied Engineering Physics at the University of Groningen and did his PhD research at AMOLF, Amsterdam. As PostDoc at JET and the University of Osnabrück. In 1995 he joined the KVI (University of Groningen) as staff member. In 2004 he was appointed Professor and served as director of the International Research School for Fundamental and Applied Nuclear and Atomic Physics. In 2013 he moved with his group to the Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials (University of Groningen) and is now officially seconded to VU by the University of Groningen. He is also group leader at the Advanced Research Center for Nanolithography (ARCNL, Amsterdam) and leads the FEL‐NL initiative for a Dutch soft‐X‐ray free‐electron laser infrastructure.


A 777431 - XLS Part B Pag 103 of 109

5. Ethics and Security

5.1 Ethics

The following ethical issues have been identified by the reviewers and described in the Ethics Summary Report:

There appear to be no significant ethical issues associated with this proposal. However, as it involves participation of non-EU countries (China, Australia, Switzerland and Turkey) and as the applicant has not provided any detailed information on research activities to be carried out in each of the participating countries, nor any self-assessment of ethical issues that might be involved, the applicant should be asked to confirm that the ethical standards and guidelines of Horizon 2020 will be rigorously applied, regardless of the country in which the research is carried out.

In the declarations attached below the partners SINAP (P4, China), UoM (P7, Australia), ANSTO-AS (P8, Australia), UA-IAT (P9, Turkey) and PSI (P20, Switzerland) of CompactLight confirm, that they will rigorously apply the ethical standards and guidelines of Horizon2020, regardless of the country in which the research is carried out. CERN (P2, Switzerland) declares that when participating as a beneficiary in an EU project, it commits to the EU’s ethic research standards as set out (and signed) in Article 34 of the project’s Grant Agreement.


A 777431 - XLS Part B Pag 104 of 109


A 777431 - XLS Part B Pag 105 of 109


A 777431 - XLS Part B Pag 106 of 109


A 777431 - XLS Part B Pag 107 of 109


A 777431 - XLS Part B Pag 108 of 109


A 777431 - XLS Part B Pag 109 of 109

5.2 Security21

Please indicate if your project will involve:

Activities or results raising security issues: NO

'EU-classified information' as background or results: NO

21

Article 37.1 of Model Grant Agreement. Before disclosing results of activities raising security issues to a third party

(including affiliated entities), a beneficiary must inform the coordinator — which must request written approval from

the Commission/Agency; Article 37. Activities related to ‘classified deliverables’ must comply with the ‘security

requirements’ until they are declassified; Action tasks related to classified deliverables may not be subcontracted

without prior explicit written approval from the Commission/Agency.; The beneficiaries must inform the coordinator

— which must immediately inform the Commission/Agency — of any changes in the security context and — if

necessary —request for Annex 1 to be amended (see Article 55)



ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR THE ACTION (page 1 of 2)

1

Estimated eligible1 costs (per budget category) EU contribution Additional information

A. Direct personnel costs B. Direct costs ofsubcontracting

C. Direct costs offin. support

D. Other directcosts

E. Indirect costs2 Total costs Reimbursementrate %

Maximum EUcontribution3

Maximumgrant amount4

Information forindirect costs

Informationfor auditors

Otherinformation:

A.1 Employees (or equivalent)A.2 Natural persons under directcontractA.3 Seconded persons[A.6 Personnel for providing access toresearch infrastructure]

A.4 SME owners without salaryA.5 Beneficiaries that are naturalpersons without salary

D.1 TravelD.2EquipmentD.3 Other goodsand servicesD.4 Costs oflarge researchinfrastructure

Actual Unit7 Unit8 Actual Actual Actual Flat-rate9Form of costs6

25%

Estimatedcosts of in-kind

contributions notused on premises

Declarationof costs under

Point D.4

Estimated costsof beneficiaries/

linked thirdparties notreceiving

EU funding

(a) Total (b) No hours Total (c) (d) (e) (f)

(g)=0,25x((a)+(b)+

(c)+(f)+[(h1)+(h2)]-

(m))

(i)=(a)+(b)+(c)+(d)+(e)+(f)+

(g)+(h1)+(h2)+(h3)

(j) (k) (l) (m) Yes/No

1. ST 240000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 64000.00 76000.00 380000.00 100.00 380000.00 380000.00 0.00 No

2. CERN 232400.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 60600.00 303000.00 100.00 303000.00 303000.00 0.00 No

3. STFC 252800.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 65700.00 328500.00 100.00 328500.00 328500.00 0.00 No

4. SINAP13 45000.00

5. IASA 54000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 13500.00 77500.00 100.00 77500.00 67500.00 10000.00 No

6. UU 95200.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 26300.00 131500.00 100.00 131500.00 131500.00 0.00 No

7. UoM13 373500.00

8. ANSTO-AS13 133125.00

9. UA-IAT 67200.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 19300.00 96500.00 100.00 96500.00 96500.00 0.00 No

10. ULANC 75000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 21250.00 106250.00 100.00 106250.00 106250.00 0.00 No

11. VDL ETG 72000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 20500.00 102500.00 100.00 102500.00 102500.00 0.00 No

12. TU/e 0.00 72000.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 20500.00 102500.00 100.00 102500.00 102500.00 0.00 No

13. INFN 160000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 42500.00 212500.00 100.00 212500.00 212500.00 0.00 No

14. Kyma 63600.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 18400.00 92000.00 100.00 92000.00 92000.00 0.00 No

15. SAPIENZA 48000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 14500.00 72500.00 100.00 72500.00 72500.00 0.00 No

16. ENEA 150000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 40000.00 200000.00 100.00 200000.00 200000.00 0.00 No

17. ALBA-CELLS 120600.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 32650.00 163250.00 100.00 163250.00 163250.00 0.00 No

18. CNRS 55500.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 16375.00 81875.00 100.00 81875.00 81875.00 0.00 No

19. KIT 97200.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 26800.00 134000.00 100.00 134000.00 134000.00 0.00 No

20. PSI 0.00 92400.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 25600.00 128000.00 100.00 128000.00 128000.00 0.00 No

21. CSIC 54000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 16000.00 80000.00 100.00 80000.00 80000.00 0.00 No

22. UH/HIP 0.00 41500.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 5000.00 11625.00 58125.00 100.00 58125.00 58125.00 0.00 No

23. VU 67200.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 10000.00 19300.00 96500.00 100.00 96500.00 96500.00 0.00 No

24. USTR 45000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 5000.00 12500.00 62500.00 100.00 62500.00 62500.00 0.00 No

Total consortium 1949700.00 205900.00 0.00 0.00 254000.00 599900.00 3009500.00 3009500.00 2999500.00 10000.00 551625.00



ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR THE ACTION (page 2 of 2)

2

(1) See Article 6 for the eligibility conditions(2) The indirect costs covered by the operating grant (received under any EU or Euratom funding programme; see Article 6.5.(b)) are ineligible under the GA. Therefore, a beneficiary that receives an operating grant during the action's duration cannot declare indirect costs for the year(s)/reporting period(s) covered by the operatinggrant (see Article 6.2.E).(3) This is the theoretical amount of EU contribution that the system calculates automatically (by multiplying all the budgeted costs by the reimbursement rate). This theoretical amount is capped by the 'maximum grant amount' (that the Commission/Agency decided to grant for the action) (see Article 5.1).(4) The 'maximum grant amount' is the maximum grant amount decided by the Commission/Agency. It normally corresponds to the requested grant, but may be lower.(5) Depending on its type, this specific cost category will or will not cover indirect costs. Specific unit costs that include indirect costs are: costs for energy efficiency measures in buildings, access costs for providing trans-national access to research infrastructure and costs for clinical studies.(6) See Article 5 for the forms of costs(7) Unit : hours worked on the action; costs per unit (hourly rate) : calculated according to beneficiary's usual accounting practice(8) See Annex 2a 'Additional information on the estimated budget' for the details (costs per hour (hourly rate)).(9) Flat rate : 25% of eligible direct costs, from which are excluded: direct costs of subcontracting, costs of in-kind contributions not used on premises, direct costs of financial support, and unit costs declared under budget category F if they include indirect costs(10) See Annex 2a 'Additional information on the estimated budget' for the details (units, costs per unit).(11) See Annex 2a 'Additional information on the estimated budget' for the details (units, costs per unit, estimated number of units, etc)(12) Only specific unit costs that do not include indirect costs(13) See Article 9 for beneficiaries not receiving EU funding(14) Only for linked third parties that receive EU funding


Grant Agreement number: [insert number] [insert acronym] [insert call identifier]

H2020 Model Grant Agreements: H2020 General MGA — Multi: v3.0 – dd.mm.2016

ANNEX 2a

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE ESTIMATED BUDGET

Unit cost for SME owners/natural beneficiaries without salary

1. Costs for a [SME owner][beneficiary that is a natural person] not receiving a salary

Units: hours worked on the action

Amount per unit (‘hourly rate’): calculated according to the following formula:

{{ EUR 4,650 / 143 hours}

multiplied by

{country-specific correction coefficient of the country where the beneficiary is established}

Country-specific correction coefficient (in force at the time of the call):

EU Member States

country coefficient country coefficient country coefficient country coefficient country coefficient

AT 104.8% DK 135.3% HR 97.5% LV 75.9% SE 111.7%

BE 100.0% EE 78.3% HU 76.2% MT 89.6% SI 86.1%

BG 71.5% EL 92.7% IE 113.5% NL 104.3% SK 82.6%

CY 91.8% ES 97.6% IT 106.7% PL 76.4% UK 120.3%

CZ 83.8% FI 116.6% LT 73.1% PT 89.1%

DE 98.8% FR 111.0% LU 100.0% RO 68.3%

H2020 associated countries


AL 76.1% FO 134.1% LI 110.0% MK 68.4% TR 86.6%

BA 73.6% IL 108.7% MD 61.1% NO 131.9%

CH 113.1% IS 116.6% ME 66.9% RS 67.1%

Other countries


AM 89.9% CU 83.8% JP 115.9% NI 57.3% TJ 64.9%

AO 114.6% CV 76.4% KE 78.1% NP 73.5% TL 78.3%

AR 58.5% DJ 93.4% KG 83.1% NZ 94.1% TN 70.5%

AU 105.0% DO 66.9% KH 70.5% PA 57.0% TO 85.0%

AZ 93.0% DZ 81.7% KR 105.2% PE 75.5% TT 74.1%

BB 116.6% EC 68.8% KZ 100.2% PG 83.0% TW 83.6%

BD 47.2% EG 48.6% LA 77.7% PH 65.8% TZ 65.2%

BF 93.8% ER 61.2% LB 86.4% PK 49.4% UA 92.3%

BJ 92.6% ET 85.2% LK 61.6% PS 100.4% UG 65.7%

BM 151.5% FJ 68.1% LR 100.1% PY 71.9% US 99.4%

BO 51.3% GA 113.1% LS 56.7% RU 115.5% UY 75.3%

BR 92.0% GE 89.5% LY 60.0% RW 87.3% UZ 51.4%

BW 55.3% GH 68.2% MA 83.5% SA 84.8% VE 70.0%

BY 65.0% GM 67.7% MG 80.0% SB 93.3% VN 51.1%

BZ 75.3% GN 60.4% ML 90.4% SD 65.1% VU 112.6%

CA 86.4% GT 78.8% MR 64.5% SG 102.5% WS 75.8%

CD 127.6% GW 102.7% MU 72.7% SL 85.2% XK 58.6%

CF 114.3% GY 58.9% MW 76.0% SN 86.2% YE 68.1%

CG 124.9% HK 93.8% MX 70.4% SR 50.6% ZA 55.8%

CI 102.0% HN 69.0% MY 71.6% SV 74.3% ZM 66.4%




CL 67.1% HT 108.7% MZ 71.6% SY 74.8% ZW 47.2%

CM 103.3% ID 75.3% NA 68.3% SZ 56.8%

CN 85.0% IN 52.8% NC 128.9% TD 125.3%

CO 76.6% JM 94.9% NE 87.9% TG 88.7%

CR 76.7% JO 75.5% NG 92.4% TH 65.0%

[additional OPTION for beneficiaries/linked third parties that have opted to use the unit cost (in the

proposal/with an amendment): For the following beneficiaries/linked third parties, the amounts per

unit (hourly rate) are fixed as follows:

- Beneficiary/linked third party [short name]: EUR [insert amount]

- Beneficiary/linked third party [short name]: EUR [insert amount]

[same for other beneficiaries/linked third parties, if necessary] ]

Estimated number of units: see Annex 2

Energy efficiency measures unit cost

[OPTION if specific unit cost applicable to the grant: 2. Costs for energy efficiency

measures in buildings

Unit: m2 of eligible ‘conditioned’ (i.e. built or refurbished) floor area

Amount per unit*: see (for each beneficiary/linked third party and BEST table) the ‘unit cost table’ attached

* Amount calculated as follows:

{EUR 0.1 x estimated total kWh saved per m² per year x 10}

Estimated number of units: see (for each beneficiary/linked third party and BEST table) the ‘unit cost table’

attached

Unit cost table (energy efficiency measures unit cost)1

Short name beneficiary/linked

third party

BEST No Cost Amount per

unit

Estimated No of

units

Total unit cost (cost per unit x

estimated no of units)

]

Research infrastructure unit cost

[OPTION if specific unit cost applicable to the grant: 3. Access costs for providing trans-

national access to research infrastructure

Units2: see (for each access provider and installation) the ‘unit cost table’ attached

1 Data from the ‘building energy specification table (BEST)’ that is part of the proposal and Annex

1.




Amount per unit*: see (for each access provider and installation) the ‘unit cost table’ attached

* Amount calculated as follows:

average annual total access cost to the installation (over past two years3) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

average annual total quantity of access to the installation (over past two years4)

Estimated number of units: see (for each access provider and installation) the ‘unit cost table’ attached

Unit cost table (access to research infrastructure unit cost)5

Short name

access

provider

Short

name

infrastru

cture

Installation Unit of

access

Amount per

unit

Estimated No

of units

Total unit

cost (cost per

unit x estimated

no of units) No Short name

]

Clinical studies unit cost

[OPTION if specific unit cost is applicable to the grant: 4. Costs for clinical studies

Units: patients/subjects that participate in the clinical study

Amount per unit*: see (for each clinical study and beneficiary/linked third party) the ‘unit cost table’ attached

Estimated number of units: see (for each clinical study and beneficiary/linked third party) the ‘unit cost table’

attached

* Amount calculated, for each task described in the protocol, as follows:

{Task 1

{unit cost component ‘personnel costs’

+ unit cost component ‘costs of consumables’

+ unit cost component ‘costs of medical equipment’

+ unit cost component ‘costs of other specific services’

+ unit cost component ‘indirect costs’}

+ Task 2

{unit cost component ‘personnel costs’

+ unit cost component ‘costs of consumables’

+ unit cost component ‘costs of medical equipment’

+ unit cost component ‘costs of other specific services’

2 Unit of access (e.g. beam hours, weeks of access, sample analysis) fixed by the access provider in

proposal. 3 In exceptional and duly justified cases, the Commission/Agency may agree to a different reference

period. 4 In exceptional and duly justified cases, the Commission/Agency may agree to a different reference

period. 5 Data from the ‘table on estimated costs/quantity of access to be provided’ that is part of the

proposal and Annex 1.




+ unit cost component ‘indirect costs’}

[same for all other tasks]}

Unit cost components calculated as follows:

Unit cost component ‘personnel costs’ (i.e. ‘personnel costs of doctors’ + ‘personnel costs of other medical

personnel’ + ‘personnel costs of technical personnel’)

For unit cost component ‘personnel costs of doctors’:

{‘average hourly cost for doctors’, i.e.:

certified or auditable total personnel costs for doctors for year N-1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

{1720 * number of full-time equivalent for the personnel category doctors for year N-1}

multiplied by

estimated number of hours worked by doctors for the task (per patient/subject)}

For unit cost component ‘personnel costs of other medical personnel’:

{‘average hourly cost for other medical personnel’, i.e.:

certified or auditable total personnel costs for other medical personnel for year N-1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

{1720 * number of full-time equivalent for the personnel category other medical personnel for

year N-1}

multiplied by

estimated number of hours worked by other medical personnel for the task (per patient/subject)}

For unit cost component ‘personnel costs of technical personnel’:

{average hourly cost for technical personnel, i.e.:

certified or auditable total personnel costs for technical personnel for year N-1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

{1720 * number of full-time equivalent for the personnel category technical personnel for year

N-1}

multiplied by

estimated number of hours worked by technical personnel for the task (per patient/subject)}

‘total personnel costs’ means actual salaries + actual social security contributions + actual taxes and other

costs included in the remuneration, provided they arise from national law or the employment

contract or equivalent appointing act

Unit cost component ‘costs of consumables’ (i.e. ‘costs of consumables category 1 + ‘costs of consumables

category 2’ + ‘costs of consumables category 3’, etc)

For each category of consumables:

{‘average price per item’, i.e.:

{certified or auditable total costs of purchase of the consumables in year N-1 for the category

of consumables concerned _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

total number of items purchased in year N-1 for the category of consumables concerned}

multiplied by

estimated number of items used for the task (per patient/subject)}

‘total costs of purchase of the consumables’ means total value of the supply contracts (including

related duties, taxes and charges such as non-deductible VAT) concluded by the beneficiary for

consumables delivered in year N-1, provided the contracts were awarded according to the

principle of best value-for-money and without any conflict of interests

Unit cost component ‘costs of medical equipment’ (i.e. ‘costs of medical equipment category 1’ + ‘costs of

medical equipment category 2’ + ‘costs of medical equipment category 3’, etc.)

For each category of medical equipment:

{‘average cost of depreciation and directly related services per unit of use’, i.e.:




{certified or auditable total depreciation costs in year N-1 for the category of equipment

concerned + certified or auditable total costs of purchase of services in year N-1 for the

category of equipment concerned} ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

total capacity in year N-1

multiplied by

estimated number of units of use of the equipment for the task (per patient/subject)}

‘total depreciation costs’ means total depreciation allowances as recorded in the beneficiary’s

accounts of year N-1 for the category of equipment concerned, provided the equipment was

purchased according to the principle of best value-for-money and without any conflict of

interests + total costs of renting or leasing contracts (including related duties, taxes and charges

such as non-deductible VAT) in year N-1 for the category of equipment concerned, provided

they do not exceed the depreciation costs of similar equipment and do not include finance fees

Unit cost component ‘costs of other specific services’ (i.e. ‘costs of contracts for specific service 1’ + ‘costs

of contracts for specific service 2’ + ‘costs of contracts for specific service 3’, etc.)

For each category of specific service:

‘average cost of a specific service per patient or subject’, i.e.:

certified or auditable total costs of purchase of a service in year N-1 for the category of specific

services necessary for the conduct of clinical studies _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-___________________________________

total number of patients or subjects included in the clinical studies for which the specific

service was delivered in year N-1

‘total costs of purchase of a service’ means total value of the contracts concluded by the beneficiary

(including related duties, taxes and charges such as non-deductible VAT) for the specific

service delivered in year N-1 for the conduct of clinical studies, provided the contracts were

awarded according to the principle of best value-for-money and without any conflict of

interests

Unit cost component ‘indirect costs’

{25%

multiplied by

{unit cost component ‘personnel costs’ + unit cost component ‘costs of consumables’ + unit cost

component ‘costs of medical equipment’}}

The following must be excluded:

costs of in-kind contributions provided by third parties which are not used on the beneficiary’s

premises and

costs of providing financial support to third parties (if any).

Unit cost table: clinical studies unit cost6

[Insert name of clinical study]

Tasks and unit cost

components Resources per

patient

Amount

per unit

for

beneficiary

/linked

third party

Amount

per unit

for

beneficiary

/linked

third party

Amount per unit

for

beneficiary/linked

third party 3

[insert short

name]

…

6 Same table as in proposal and Annex 1.




1

[insert

short

name]

2 [insert

short

name]

in-kind

contrib

utions

by

third

party*

Task No. 1 Blood sample

Personnel costs

doctors ---- 0 0 0 0

other medical personnel

Phlebotomy (nurse), 10 minutes

8,33 EUR 11,59 EUR 10,55 EUR

9,76 EUR

technical

personnel

Sample Processing

(lab technician), 15

minutes

9,51 EUR 15,68 EUR 13,77

EUR

12,35

EUR

Costs of

consumables

Category 1 Syringe, 1 XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR

Category 2 Cannula, 1 XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR

Category 2 Blood container, 1 XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR

…

Costs of

medical

equipment

Category 1 Use of -80° deep freezer, 60 days

XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR

Category 2 Use of centrifuge,

15 minutes

XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR

….

Costs of other

specific services

Category 1

Category 2

…

Indirect costs

Task No. 2

…

Total amount per unit XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR XX

EUR**

Estimated No of units (patients/subjects participating in the

study)

XX XX XX XX

Total unit cost for beneficiary/linked third party (total cost per unit x estimated no of units)

XX EUR XX EUR XX EUR

* Use costs of third party making in-kind contribution.

** Capped at payment to third party, if any.



1

ANNEX 3

ACCESSION FORM FOR BENEFICIARIES

EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN), established in ROUTEDE MEYRIN CERN, GENEVA 23 1211, Switzerland, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purposeof signing this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees

to become beneficiary No (‘2’)

in Grant Agreement No 777431 (‘the Agreement’)

between ELETTRA - SINCROTRONE TRIESTE SCPA and the European Union (‘the EU’),represented by the European Commission ('the Commission'),

for the action entitled ‘CompactLight (XLS)’.

and mandates

the coordinator to submit and sign in its name and on its behalf any amendments to the Agreement,in accordance with Article 55.

By signing this Accession Form, the beneficiary accepts the grant and agrees to implement it inaccordance with the Agreement, with all the obligations and conditions it sets out.

SIGNATURE

For the beneficiary[--TGSMark#signature-999988133_75_210--]



2

ANNEX 3


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FACILITIES COUNCIL (STFC), established in Polaris HouseNorth Star Avenue, SWINDON SN2 1SZ, United Kingdom, VAT number: GB618367325, (‘thebeneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




3

ANNEX 3


SHANGHAI INSTITUTE OF APPLIED PHYSICS CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCE(SINAP), established in JIALUO RD 2019, Shanghai 201800, China (People's Republic of), (‘thebeneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




4

ANNEX 3


INSTITUTE OF ACCELERATING SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS (IASA), established inPANEPISTIMIOU 30, ATHINA 10024, Greece, VAT number: EL090250292, (‘the beneficiary’),represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




5

ANNEX 3


UPPSALA UNIVERSITET (UU), established in VON KRAEMERS ALLE 4, UPPSALA 751 05,Sweden, VAT number: SE202100293201, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signingthis Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




6

ANNEX 3


UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE (UoM), established in PARKVILLEOFFICE OF THE VICECHANCELLOR, MELBOURNE 3010, Australia, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose ofsigning this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




7

ANNEX 3


AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION (ANSTO-AS), established in New Illawarra Road, LUCAS HEIGHTS 2234, Australia, (‘the beneficiary’),represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




8

ANNEX 3


ANKARA UNIVERSITESI (UA-IAT), established in DOGOL CADDESI, TANDOGANANKARA 06100, Turkey, VAT number: TR0010323791, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for thepurpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




9

ANNEX 3


LANCASTER UNIVERSITY (ULANC), established in BAILRIGG, LANCASTER LA1 4YW,United Kingdom, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form bythe undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




10

ANNEX 3


VDL ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES GROUP EINDHOVEN BV (VDL ETG), establishedin ACHTSEWEG NOORD 5 AK-1 K113, EINDHOVEN 5651 GG, Netherlands, VAT number:NL006300686B01, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Formby the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




11

ANNEX 3


TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITEIT EINDHOVEN (TU/e), established in GROENE LOPER5, EINDHOVEN 5612 AE, Netherlands, VAT number: NL001956218B01, (‘the beneficiary’),represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




12

ANNEX 3


ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI FISICA NUCLEARE (INFN), established in Via Enrico Fermi40, FRASCATI 00044, Italy, VAT number: IT04430461006, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for thepurpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




13

ANNEX 3


KYMA SRL (Kyma), established in BASOVIZZA S.S. 14 KM 163.5, TRIESTE 34149, Italy, VATnumber: IT01131640326, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this AccessionForm by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




14

ANNEX 3


UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA (SAPIENZA), established in PiazzaleAldo Moro 5, ROMA 00185, Italy, VAT number: IT02133771002, (‘the beneficiary’), representedfor the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




15

ANNEX 3


AGENZIA NAZIONALE PER LE NUOVE TECNOLOGIE, L'ENERGIA E LOSVILUPPO ECONOMICO SOSTENIBILE (ENEA), established in LUNGOTEVERE GRANDEAMMIRAGLIO THAON DI REVEL 76, ROMA 000196, Italy, VAT number: IT00985801000, (‘thebeneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




16

ANNEX 3


CONSORCIO PARA LA CONSTRUCCION EQUIPAMIENTO Y EXPLOTACION DELLABORATORIO DE LUZ SINCROTRON (ALBA-CELLS), established in CARRER DELA LLUM 2-26, CERDANYOLA DEL VALLES BARCELONA 08290, Spain, VAT number:ESQ0801209H, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form bythe undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




17

ANNEX 3


CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE CNRS (CNRS), established inRUE MICHEL ANGE 3, PARIS 75794, France, VAT number: FR40180089013, (‘the beneficiary’),represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




18

ANNEX 3


KARLSRUHER INSTITUT FUER TECHNOLOGIE (KIT), established in KAISERSTRASSE12, KARLSRUHE 76131, Germany, VAT number: DE266749428, (‘the beneficiary’), representedfor the purpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




19

ANNEX 3


PAUL SCHERRER INSTITUT (PSI), established in ., VILLIGEN PSI 5232, Switzerland, VATnumber: CHE116133392MWST, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing thisAccession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




20

ANNEX 3


AGENCIA ESTATAL CONSEJO SUPERIOR DEINVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS(CSIC), established in CALLE SERRANO 117, MADRID 28006, Spain, VAT number:ESQ2818002D, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose of signing this Accession Form bythe undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




21

ANNEX 3


HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO (UH/HIP), established in FABIANINKATU 33, HELSINGINYLIOPISTO 00014, Finland, VAT number: FI03134717, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for thepurpose of signing this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




22

ANNEX 3


STICHTING VU (VU), established in DE BOELELAAN 1105, AMSTERDAM 1081 HV,Netherlands, VAT number: NL851029279B01, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purpose ofsigning this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE




23

ANNEX 3


UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE (USTR), established in Richmond Street 16, GLASGOW G11XQ, United Kingdom, VAT number: GB261339762, (‘the beneficiary’), represented for the purposeof signing this Accession Form by the undersigned,

hereby agrees





and mandates



SIGNATURE





i print

format A4

landscape

Receipts

Additiona

l

informati

on

B. Direct

costs of

subcontra

cting

[C. Direct

costs of

fin.

support]

E. Indirect

costs2

Total

costsReceipts

Reimburs

ement

rate %

Maximum

EU

contributi

on3

Requeste

d EU

contributi

on

Informatio

n for

indirect

costs :

[C.1

Financial

support]

D.1 Travel

[D.4 Costs

of large

research

infrastruct

ure]

[C.2 Prizes]D.2

Equipment

Flat-rate 5

25%

[short

name

beneficiary

/linked

third

party]

m

[F.1 Costs of …] [F.1 Costs of …]

Actual Actual Actual [Unit][Lump sum]

nNo units

The costs can be substantiated by adequate records and supporting documentation that will be produced upon request or in the context of checks, reviews, audits and investigations (see Articles 17, 18 and 22).

ActualForm of

costs4 Unit Actual Unit Unit

la [e]

h=0,25 x

(a+b+

c+f+[g] +

[g] o

A. Direct personnel costs [F. Costs of … ]

Costs of in-

kind

contributio

ns not used

on

premisesA.2 Natural persons under direct

contract

A.5 Beneficiaries that

are natural persons

without salary

Total [i1] Total [i2]

j =

a+b+c+d+[

e] +f +[g] +

kTotal b No hours Total c d

Receipts of

the action,

to be

reported in

the last

reporting

period,

according

to Article

5.3.3

f

D. Other direct costs

MODEL ANNEX 4 FOR H2020 GENERAL MGA — MULTI

FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR [BENEFICIARY [name]/ LINKED THIRD PARTY [name]] FOR REPORTING PERIOD [reporting period]

Eligible1 costs (per budget category) EU contribution

A.4 SME owners

without salary

A.3 Seconded persons

[A.6 Personnel for providing access

to research infrastructure]

D.3 Other

goods and

services

A.1 Employees (or equivalent)

6 Only specific unit costs that do not include indirect costs

i Please declare all eligible costs, even if they exceed the amounts indicated in the estimated budget (see Annex 2). Only amounts that were declared in your individual financial statements can be taken into account lateron, in order to replace other

costs that are found to be ineligible.

The beneficiary/linked third party hereby confirms that:

The information provided is complete, reliable and true.

The costs declared are eligible (see Article 6).

4 See Article 5 for the form of costs

5 Flat rate : 25% of eligible direct costs, from which are excluded: direct costs of subcontracting, costs of in-kind contributions not used on premises, direct costs of financial support, and unit costs declared under budget category F if they include

indirect costs (see Article 6.2.E)

1 See Article 6 for the eligibility conditions

2 The indirect costs claimed must be free of any amounts covered by an operating grant (received under any EU or Euratom funding programme; see Article 6.2.E). If you have received an operating grant during this reporting period, you cannot claim

any indirect costs. 3 This is the theoretical amount of EU contribution that the system calculates automatically (by multiplying the reimbursement rate by the total costs declared). The amount you request (in the column 'requested EU contribution') may be less

For the last reporting period: that all the receipts have been declared (see Article 5.3.3).




1

ANNEX 5

MODEL FOR THE CERTIFICATE ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For options [in italics in square brackets]: choose the applicable option. Options not chosen should

be deleted. For fields in [grey in square brackets]: enter the appropriate data

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR AN INDEPENDENT REPORT OF FACTUAL FINDINGS ON COSTS

DECLARED UNDER A GRANT AGREEMENT FINANCED UNDER THE HORIZON 2020 RESEARCH

FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

INDEPENDENT REPORT OF FACTUAL FINDINGS ON COSTS DECLARED UNDER A GRANT

AGREEMENT FINANCED UNDER THE HORIZON 2020 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME




2

Terms of Reference for an Independent Report of Factual Findings on costs declared

under a Grant Agreement financed under the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation

Framework Programme

This document sets out the ‘Terms of Reference (ToR)’ under which

[OPTION 1: [insert name of the beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)] [OPTION 2: [insert name of the

linked third party] (‘the Linked Third Party’), third party linked to the Beneficiary [insert name of the

beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)]

agrees to engage

[insert legal name of the auditor] (‘the Auditor’)

to produce an independent report of factual findings (‘the Report’) concerning the Financial

Statement(s)1 drawn up by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] for the Horizon 2020 grant

agreement [insert number of the grant agreement, title of the action, acronym and duration from/to]

(‘the Agreement’), and

to issue a Certificate on the Financial Statements’ (‘CFS’) referred to in Article 20.4 of the Agreement

based on the compulsory reporting template stipulated by the Commission.

The Agreement has been concluded under the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework

Programme (H2020) between the Beneficiary and [OPTION 1: the European Union, represented by

the European Commission (‘the Commission’)][ OPTION 2: the European Atomic Energy Community

(Euratom,) represented by the European Commission (‘the Commission’)][OPTION 3: the [Research

Executive Agency (REA)] [European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)] [Innovation and

Networks Executive Agency (INEA)] [Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

(EASME)] (‘the Agency’), under the powers delegated by the European Commission (‘the

Commission’).]

The [Commission] [Agency] is mentioned as a signatory of the Agreement with the Beneficiary only.

The [European Union][Euratom][Agency] is not a party to this engagement.

1.1 Subject of the engagement

The coordinator must submit to the [Commission][Agency] the final report within 60 days following

the end of the last reporting period which should include, amongst other documents, a CFS for each

beneficiary and for each linked third party that requests a total contribution of EUR 325 000 or more,

as reimbursement of actual costs and unit costs calculated on the basis of its usual cost accounting

practices (see Article 20.4 of the Agreement). The CFS must cover all reporting periods of the

beneficiary or linked third party indicated above.

The Beneficiary must submit to the coordinator the CFS for itself and for its linked third party(ies), if

the CFS must be included in the final report according to Article 20.4 of the Agreement..

The CFS is composed of two separate documents:

- The Terms of Reference (‘the ToR’) to be signed by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]

and the Auditor;

1 By which costs under the Agreement are declared (see template ‘Model Financial Statements’ in Annex 4 to

the Grant Agreement).




3

- The Auditor’s Independent Report of Factual Findings (‘the Report’) to be issued on the

Auditor’s letterhead, dated, stamped and signed by the Auditor (or the competent public

officer) which includes the agreed-upon procedures (‘the Procedures’) to be performed by the

Auditor, and the standard factual findings (‘the Findings’) to be confirmed by the Auditor.

If the CFS must be included in the final report according to Article 20.4 of the Agreement, the request

for payment of the balance relating to the Agreement cannot be made without the CFS. However, the

payment for reimbursement of costs covered by the CFS does not preclude the [Commission,][

Agency,] the European Anti-Fraud Office and the European Court of Auditors from carrying out

checks, reviews, audits and investigations in accordance with Article 22 of the Agreement.

1.2 Responsibilities

The [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]:

must draw up the Financial Statement(s) for the action financed by the Agreement in

compliance with the obligations under the Agreement. The Financial Statement(s) must be

drawn up according to the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] accounting and book-

keeping system and the underlying accounts and records;

must send the Financial Statement(s) to the Auditor;

is responsible and liable for the accuracy of the Financial Statement(s);

is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the information provided to enable the

Auditor to carry out the Procedures. It must provide the Auditor with a written representation

letter supporting these statements. The written representation letter must state the period

covered by the statements and must be dated;

accepts that the Auditor cannot carry out the Procedures unless it is given full access to the

[Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] staff and accounting as well as any other relevant

records and documentation.

The Auditor:

[Option 1 by default: is qualified to carry out statutory audits of accounting documents in

accordance with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17

May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending

Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC

or similar national regulations].

[Option 2 if the Beneficiary or Linked Third Party has an independent Public Officer: is a

competent and independent Public Officer for which the relevant national authorities have

established the legal capacity to audit the Beneficiary].

[Option 3 if the Beneficiary or Linked Third Party is an international organisation: is an

[internal] [external] auditor in accordance with the internal financial regulations and

procedures of the international organisation].

The Auditor:

must be independent from the Beneficiary [and the Linked Third Party], in particular, it must

not have been involved in preparing the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] Financial

Statement(s);

must plan work so that the Procedures may be carried out and the Findings may be assessed;

must adhere to the Procedures laid down and the compulsory report format;

must carry out the engagement in accordance with this ToR;

must document matters which are important to support the Report;

must base its Report on the evidence gathered;

must submit the Report to the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party].




4

The Commission sets out the Procedures to be carried out by the Auditor. The Auditor is not

responsible for their suitability or pertinence. As this engagement is not an assurance engagement, the

Auditor does not provide an audit opinion or a statement of assurance.

1.3 Applicable Standards

The Auditor must comply with these Terms of Reference and with2:

- the International Standard on Related Services (‘ISRS’) 4400 Engagements to perform

Agreed-upon Procedures regarding Financial Information as issued by the International

Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB);

- the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants issued by the International Ethics

Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA). Although ISRS 4400 states that independence

is not a requirement for engagements to carry out agreed-upon procedures, the

[Commission][Agency] requires that the Auditor also complies with the Code’s

independence requirements.

The Auditor’s Report must state that there is no conflict of interests in establishing this Report

between the Auditor and the Beneficiary [and the Linked Third Party], and must specify - if the

service is invoiced - the total fee paid to the Auditor for providing the Report.

1.4 Reporting

The Report must be written in the language of the Agreement (see Article 20.7).

Under Article 22 of the Agreement, the Commission[, the Agency], the European Anti-Fraud Office

and the Court of Auditors have the right to audit any work that is carried out under the action and for

which costs are declared from [the European Union] [Euratom] budget. This includes work related to

this engagement. The Auditor must provide access to all working papers (e.g. recalculation of hourly

rates, verification of the time declared for the action) related to this assignment if the Commission [,

the Agency], the European Anti-Fraud Office or the European Court of Auditors requests them.

1.5 Timing

The Report must be provided by [dd Month yyyy].

1.6 Other terms

[The [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] and the Auditor can use this section to agree other specific

terms, such as the Auditor’s fees, liability, applicable law, etc. Those specific terms must not

contradict the terms specified above.]

[legal name of the Auditor] [legal name of the [Beneficiary][Linked Third Party]]

[name & function of authorised representative] [name & function of authorised representative]

[dd Month yyyy] [dd Month yyyy]

Signature of the Auditor Signature of the [Beneficiary][Linked Third Party]

2 Supreme Audit Institutions applying INTOSAI-standards may carry out the Procedures according to the

corresponding International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions and code of ethics issued by INTOSAI

instead of the International Standard on Related Services (‘ISRS’) 4400 and the Code of Ethics for

Professional Accountants issued by the IAASB and the IESBA.




5

Independent Report of Factual Findings on costs declared

under Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme

(To be printed on the Auditor’s letterhead)

To

[ name of contact person(s)], [Position]

[ [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] name ]

[ Address]

[ dd Month yyyy]

Dear [Name of contact person(s)],

As agreed under the terms of reference dated [dd Month yyyy]

with [OPTION 1: [insert name of the beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)] [OPTION 2: [insert name of

the linked third party] (‘the Linked Third Party’), third party linked to the Beneficiary [insert name of

the beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)],

we

[name of the auditor ] (‘the Auditor’),

established at

[full address/city/state/province/country],

represented by

[name and function of an authorised representative],

have carried out the procedures agreed with you regarding the costs declared in the Financial

Statement(s)3 of the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] concerning the grant agreement

[insert grant agreement reference: number, title of the action and acronym] (‘the Agreement’),

with a total cost declared of

[total amount] EUR,

and a total of actual costs and ‘direct personnel costs declared as unit costs calculated in accordance

with the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] usual cost accounting practices’ declared of

[sum of total actual costs and total direct personnel costs declared as unit costs calculated in

accordance with the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] usual cost accounting practices] EUR

and hereby provide our Independent Report of Factual Findings (‘the Report’) using the

compulsory report format agreed with you.

The Report

Our engagement was carried out in accordance with the terms of reference (‘the ToR’) appended to

this Report. The Report includes the agreed-upon procedures (‘the Procedures’) carried out and the

standard factual findings (‘the Findings’) examined.

3 By which the Beneficiary declares costs under the Agreement (see template ‘Model Financial Statement’ in

Annex 4 to the Agreement).




6

The Procedures were carried out solely to assist the [Commission] [Agency] in evaluating whether the

[Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] costs in the accompanying Financial Statement(s) were

declared in accordance with the Agreement. The [Commission] [Agency] draws its own conclusions

from the Report and any additional information it may require.

The scope of the Procedures was defined by the Commission. Therefore, the Auditor is not responsible

for their suitability or pertinence. Since the Procedures carried out constitute neither an audit nor a

review made in accordance with International Standards on Auditing or International Standards on

Review Engagements, the Auditor does not give a statement of assurance on the Financial Statements.

Had the Auditor carried out additional procedures or an audit of the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third

Party’s] Financial Statements in accordance with International Standards on Auditing or International

Standards on Review Engagements, other matters might have come to its attention and would have

been included in the Report.

Not applicable Findings

We examined the Financial Statement(s) stated above and considered the following Findings not

applicable:

Explanation (to be removed from the Report):

If a Finding was not applicable, it must be marked as ‘N.A.’ (‘Not applicable’) in the corresponding row on the

right-hand column of the table and means that the Finding did not have to be corroborated by the Auditor and

the related Procedure(s) did not have to be carried out.

The reasons of the non-application of a certain Finding must be obvious i.e.

i) if no cost was declared under a certain category then the related Finding(s) and Procedure(s) are

not applicable;

ii) if the condition set to apply certain Procedure(s) are not met the related Finding(s) and those

Procedure(s) are not applicable. For instance, for ‘beneficiaries with accounts established in a

currency other than euro’ the Procedure and Finding related to ‘beneficiaries with accounts

established in euro’ are not applicable. Similarly, if no additional remuneration is paid, the related

Finding(s) and Procedure(s) for additional remuneration are not applicable.

List here all Findings considered not applicable for the present engagement and explain the

reasons of the non-applicability.

….

Exceptions

Apart from the exceptions listed below, the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] provided the Auditor

all the documentation and accounting information needed by the Auditor to carry out the requested

Procedures and evaluate the Findings.

Explanation (to be removed from the Report):

- If the Auditor was not able to successfully complete a procedure requested, it must be marked as ‘E’

(‘Exception’) in the corresponding row on the right-hand column of the table. The reason such as the

inability to reconcile key information or the unavailability of data that prevents the Auditor from

carrying out the Procedure must be indicated below.

- If the Auditor cannot corroborate a standard finding after having carried out the corresponding

procedure, it must also be marked as ‘E’ (‘Exception’) and, where possible, the reasons why the

Finding was not fulfilled and its possible impact must be explained here below.

List here any exceptions and add any information on the cause and possible consequences of

each exception, if known. If the exception is quantifiable, include the corresponding amount.

….




7

Example (to be removed from the Report):

1. The Beneficiary was unable to substantiate the Finding number 1 on … because ….

2. Finding number 30 was not fulfilled because the methodology used by the Beneficiary to

calculate unit costs was different from the one approved by the Commission. The differences

were as follows: …

3. After carrying out the agreed procedures to confirm the Finding number 31, the Auditor found a

difference of _____________ EUR. The difference can be explained by …

Further Remarks

In addition to reporting on the results of the specific procedures carried out, the Auditor would like to

make the following general remarks:


1. Regarding Finding number 8 the conditions for additional remuneration were considered as

fulfilled because …

2. In order to be able to confirm the Finding number 15 we carried out the following additional

procedures: ….

Use of this Report

This Report may be used only for the purpose described in the above objective. It was prepared solely

for the confidential use of the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] and the [Commission] [Agency], and

only to be submitted to the [Commission] [Agency] in connection with the requirements set out in

Article 20.4 of the Agreement. The Report may not be used by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]

or by the [Commission] [Agency] for any other purpose, nor may it be distributed to any other parties.

The [Commission] [Agency] may only disclose the Report to authorised parties, in particular to the

European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Court of Auditors.

This Report relates only to the Financial Statement(s) submitted to the [Commission] [Agency] by the

[Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] for the Agreement. Therefore, it does not extend to any other of

the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] Financial Statement(s).

There was no conflict of interest4 between the Auditor and the Beneficiary [and Linked Third Party]

in establishing this Report. The total fee paid to the Auditor for providing the Report was EUR ______

(including EUR______ of deductible VAT).

We look forward to discussing our Report with you and would be pleased to provide any further

information or assistance.

[legal name of the Auditor]

[name and function of an authorised representative]

[dd Month yyyy]

Signature of the Auditor

4 A conflict of interest arises when the Auditor's objectivity to establish the certificate is compromised in fact

or in appearance when the Auditor for instance:

- was involved in the preparation of the Financial Statements;

- stands to benefit directly should the certificate be accepted;

- has a close relationship with any person representing the beneficiary;

- is a director, trustee or partner of the beneficiary; or

- is in any other situation that compromises his or her independence or ability to establish the certificate

impartially.


8

Agreed-upon procedures to be performed and standard factual findings to be confirmed by the Auditor

The European Commission reserves the right to i) provide the auditor with additional guidance regarding the procedures to be followed or the facts to be

ascertained and the way in which to present them (this may include sample coverage and findings) or to ii) change the procedures, by notifying the

Beneficiary in writing. The procedures carried out by the auditor to confirm the standard factual finding are listed in the table below.

If this certificate relates to a Linked Third Party, any reference here below to ‘the Beneficiary’ is to be considered as a reference to ‘the Linked Third Party’.

The ‘result’ column has three different options: ‘C’, ‘E’ and ‘N.A.’:

‘C’ stands for ‘confirmed’ and means that the auditor can confirm the ‘standard factual finding’ and, therefore, there is no exception to be reported.

‘E’ stands for ‘exception’ and means that the Auditor carried out the procedures but cannot confirm the ‘standard factual finding’, or that the Auditor

was not able to carry out a specific procedure (e.g. because it was impossible to reconcile key information or data were unavailable),

‘N.A.’ stands for ‘not applicable’ and means that the Finding did not have to be examined by the Auditor and the related Procedure(s) did not have

to be carried out. The reasons of the non-application of a certain Finding must be obvious i.e. i) if no cost was declared under a certain category then

the related Finding(s) and Procedure(s) are not applicable; ii) if the condition set to apply certain Procedure(s) are not met then the related Finding(s)

and Procedure(s) are not applicable. For instance, for ‘beneficiaries with accounts established in a currency other than the euro’ the Procedure related

to ‘beneficiaries with accounts established in euro’ is not applicable. Similarly, if no additional remuneration is paid, the related Finding(s) and

Procedure(s) for additional remuneration are not applicable.

Ref Procedures Standard factual finding

Result

(C / E /

N.A.)

A ACTUAL PERSONNEL COSTS AND UNIT COSTS CALCULATED BY THE BENEFICIARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS USUAL

COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICE

The Auditor draws a sample of persons whose costs were declared in the Financial Statement(s)

to carry out the procedures indicated in the consecutive points of this section A.

(The sample should be selected randomly so that it is representative. Full coverage is required if

there are fewer than 10 people (including employees, natural persons working under a direct

contract and personnel seconded by a third party), otherwise the sample should have a minimum

of 10 people, or 10% of the total, whichever number is the highest)

The Auditor sampled ______ people out of the total of ______ people.


9


Result

(C / E /

N.A.)

A.1 PERSONNEL COSTS

For the persons included in the sample and working under an employment contract or equivalent

act (general procedures for individual actual personnel costs and personnel costs declared as unit

costs)

To confirm standard factual findings 1-5 listed in the next column, the Auditor reviewed

following information/documents provided by the Beneficiary:

o a list of the persons included in the sample indicating the period(s) during which they

worked for the action, their position (classification or category) and type of contract;

o the payslips of the employees included in the sample;

o reconciliation of the personnel costs declared in the Financial Statement(s) with the

accounting system (project accounting and general ledger) and payroll system;

o information concerning the employment status and employment conditions of personnel

included in the sample, in particular their employment contracts or equivalent;

o the Beneficiary’s usual policy regarding payroll matters (e.g. salary policy, overtime

policy, variable pay);

o applicable national law on taxes, labour and social security and

o any other document that supports the personnel costs declared.

The Auditor also verified the eligibility of all components of the retribution (see Article 6 GA)

and recalculated the personnel costs for employees included in the sample.

1) The employees were i) directly

hired by the Beneficiary in

accordance with its national

legislation, ii) under the

Beneficiary’s sole technical

supervision and responsibility

and iii) remunerated in

accordance with the

Beneficiary’s usual practices.

2) Personnel costs were recorded in

the Beneficiary's

accounts/payroll system.

3) Costs were adequately supported

and reconciled with the accounts

and payroll records.

4) Personnel costs did not contain

any ineligible elements.

5) There were no discrepancies

between the personnel costs

charged to the action and the

costs recalculated by the

Auditor.

Further procedures if ‘additional remuneration’ is paid

To confirm standard factual findings 6-9 listed in the next column, the Auditor:

o reviewed relevant documents provided by the Beneficiary (legal form, legal/statutory

6) The Beneficiary paying

“additional remuneration” was a

non-profit legal entity.


10


Result

(C / E /

N.A.)

obligations, the Beneficiary’s usual policy on additional remuneration, criteria used for

its calculation…);

o recalculated the amount of additional remuneration eligible for the action based on the

supporting documents received (full-time or part-time work, exclusive or non-exclusive

dedication to the action, etc.) to arrive at the applicable FTE/year and pro-rata rate (see

data collected in the course of carrying out the procedures under A.2 ‘Productive hours’

and A.4 ‘Time recording system’).

IF ANY PART OF THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT MANDATORY ACCORDING TO THE

NATIONAL LAW OR THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT ("ADDITIONAL REMUNERATION") AND IS ELIGIBLE

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 6.2.A.1, THIS CAN BE CHARGED AS ELIGIBLE COST TO THE

ACTION UP TO THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT:

(A) IF THE PERSON WORKS FULL TIME AND EXCLUSIVELY ON THE ACTION DURING THE FULL

YEAR: UP TO EUR 8 000/YEAR;

(B) IF THE PERSON WORKS EXCLUSIVELY ON THE ACTION BUT NOT FULL-TIME OR NOT FOR THE

FULL YEAR: UP TO THE CORRESPONDING PRO-RATA AMOUNT OF EUR 8 000, OR

(C) IF THE PERSON DOES NOT WORK EXCLUSIVELY ON THE ACTION: UP TO A PRO-RATA AMOUNT

CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE TO ARTICLE 6.2.A.1.

7) The amount of additional

remuneration paid corresponded

to the Beneficiary’s usual

remuneration practices and was

consistently paid whenever the

same kind of work or expertise

was required.

8) The criteria used to calculate the

additional remuneration were

objective and generally applied

by the Beneficiary regardless of

the source of funding used.

9) The amount of additional

remuneration included in the

personnel costs charged to the

action was capped at EUR 8,000

per FTE/year (up to the

equivalent pro-rata amount if the

person did not work on the

action full-time during the year

or did not work exclusively on

the action).

Additional procedures in case “unit costs calculated by the Beneficiary in accordance with its

usual cost accounting practices” is applied:

Apart from carrying out the procedures indicated above to confirm standard factual findings 1-5

and, if applicable, also 6-9, the Auditor carried out following procedures to confirm standard

10) The personnel costs included in

the Financial Statement were

calculated in accordance with

the Beneficiary's usual cost

accounting practice. This

methodology was consistently


11


Result

(C / E /

N.A.)

factual findings 10-13 listed in the next column:

o obtained a description of the Beneficiary's usual cost accounting practice to calculate unit

costs;.

o reviewed whether the Beneficiary's usual cost accounting practice was applied for the

Financial Statements subject of the present CFS;

o verified the employees included in the sample were charged under the correct category

(in accordance with the criteria used by the Beneficiary to establish personnel categories)

by reviewing the contract/HR-record or analytical accounting records;

o verified that there is no difference between the total amount of personnel costs used in

calculating the cost per unit and the total amount of personnel costs recorded in the

statutory accounts;

o verified whether actual personnel costs were adjusted on the basis of budgeted or

estimated elements and, if so, verified whether those elements used are actually relevant

for the calculation, objective and supported by documents.

used in all H2020 actions.

11) The employees were charged

under the correct category.

12) Total personnel costs used in

calculating the unit costs were

consistent with the expenses

recorded in the statutory

accounts.

13) Any estimated or budgeted

element used by the

Beneficiary in its unit-cost

calculation were relevant for

calculating personnel costs and

corresponded to objective and

verifiable information.

For natural persons included in the sample and working with the Beneficiary under a direct

contract other than an employment contract, such as consultants (no subcontractors).

To confirm standard factual findings 14-18 listed in the next column the Auditor reviewed


o the contracts, especially the cost, contract duration, work description, place of work,

ownership of the results and reporting obligations to the Beneficiary;

o the employment conditions of staff in the same category to compare costs and;

o any other document that supports the costs declared and its registration (e.g. invoices,

14) The natural persons reported to

the Beneficiary (worked under

the Beneficiary’s instructions).

15) They worked on the

Beneficiary’s premises (unless

otherwise agreed with the

Beneficiary).

16) The results of work carried out

belong to the Beneficiary.


12


Result

(C / E /

N.A.)

accounting records, etc.). 17) Their costs were not

significantly different from

those for staff who performed

similar tasks under an

employment contract with the

Beneficiary.

18) The costs were supported by

audit evidence and registered

in the accounts.

For personnel seconded by a third party and included in the sample (not subcontractors)



o their secondment contract(s) notably regarding costs, duration, work description, place of

work and ownership of the results;

o if there is reimbursement by the Beneficiary to the third party for the resource made

available (in-kind contribution against payment): any documentation that supports the

costs declared (e.g. contract, invoice, bank payment, and proof of registration in its

accounting/payroll, etc.) and reconciliation of the Financial Statement(s) with the

accounting system (project accounting and general ledger) as well as any proof that the

amount invoiced by the third party did not include any profit;

o if there is no reimbursement by the Beneficiary to the third party for the resource made

available (in-kind contribution free of charge): a proof of the actual cost borne by the

Third Party for the resource made available free of charge to the Beneficiary such as a

statement of costs incurred by the Third Party and proof of the registration in the Third

Party's accounting/payroll;

o any other document that supports the costs declared (e.g. invoices, etc.).

19) Seconded personnel reported to

the Beneficiary and worked on

the Beneficiary’s premises

(unless otherwise agreed with

the Beneficiary).

20) The results of work carried out

belong to the Beneficiary.

If personnel is seconded against

payment:

21) The costs declared were

supported with documentation

and recorded in the

Beneficiary’s accounts. The

third party did not include any

profit.

If personnel is seconded free of

charge:

22) The costs declared did not

exceed the third party's cost as


13


Result

(C / E /

N.A.)

recorded in the accounts of the

third party and were supported

with documentation.

A.2 PRODUCTIVE HOURS


relevant documents, especially national legislation, labour agreements and contracts and time

records of the persons included in the sample, to verify that:

o the annual productive hours applied were calculated in accordance with one of the

methods described below,

o the full-time equivalent (FTEs) ratios for employees not working full-time were correctly

calculated.

If the Beneficiary applied method B, the auditor verified that the correctness in which the total

number of hours worked was calculated and that the contracts specified the annual workable

hours.

If the Beneficiary applied method C, the auditor verified that the ‘annual productive hours’

applied when calculating the hourly rate were equivalent to at least 90 % of the ‘standard annual

workable hours’. The Auditor can only do this if the calculation of the standard annual workable

hours can be supported by records, such as national legislation, labour agreements, and contracts.

BENEFICIARY'S PRODUCTIVE HOURS' FOR PERSONS WORKING FULL TIME SHALL BE ONE OF THE

FOLLOWING METHODS:

A. 1720 ANNUAL PRODUCTIVE HOURS (PRO-RATA FOR PERSONS NOT WORKING FULL-TIME)

B. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED BY THE PERSON FOR THE BENEFICIARY IN THE YEAR

(THIS METHOD IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS ‘TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED’ IN THE NEXT

COLUMN). THE CALCULATION OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED WAS DONE AS

FOLLOWS: ANNUAL WORKABLE HOURS OF THE PERSON ACCORDING TO THE EMPLOYMENT

23) The Beneficiary applied

method [choose one option and

delete the others]

[A: 1720 hours]

[B: the ‘total number of hours

worked’]

[C: ‘standard annual

productive hours’ used

correspond to usual accounting

practices]

24) Productive hours were

calculated annually.

25) For employees not working

full-time the full-time

equivalent (FTE) ratio was

correctly applied.

If the Beneficiary applied method

B.

26) The calculation of the number

of ‘annual workable hours’,

overtime and absences was

verifiable based on the

documents provided by the

Beneficiary.


14


Result

(C / E /

N.A.)

CONTRACT, APPLICABLE LABOUR AGREEMENT OR NATIONAL LAW PLUS OVERTIME WORKED

MINUS ABSENCES (SUCH AS SICK LEAVE OR SPECIAL LEAVE).

C. THE STANDARD NUMBER OF ANNUAL HOURS GENERALLY APPLIED BY THE BENEFICIARY FOR ITS

PERSONNEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS USUAL COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICES (THIS METHOD IS

ALSO REFERRED TO AS ‘STANDARD ANNUAL PRODUCTIVE HOURS’ IN THE NEXT COLUMN). THIS

NUMBER MUST BE AT LEAST 90% OF THE STANDARD ANNUAL WORKABLE HOURS.

‘ANNUAL WORKABLE HOURS’ MEANS THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE PERSONNEL MUST BE

WORKING, AT THE EMPLOYER’S DISPOSAL AND CARRYING OUT HIS/HER ACTIVITY OR DUTIES UNDER

THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, APPLICABLE COLLECTIVE LABOUR AGREEMENT OR NATIONAL

WORKING TIME LEGISLATION.

26.1) The Beneficiary calculates

the hourly rates per full

financial year following

procedure A.3 (method B

is not allowed for

beneficiaries calculating

hourly rates per month).

If the Beneficiary applied method

C.

27) The calculation of the number

of ‘standard annual workable

hours’ was verifiable based on

the documents provided by the

Beneficiary.

28) The ‘annual productive hours’

used for calculating the hourly

rate were consistent with the

usual cost accounting practices

of the Beneficiary and were

equivalent to at least 90 % of

the ‘annual workable hours’.

A.3 HOURLY PERSONNEL RATES

I) For unit costs calculated in accordance to the Beneficiary's usual cost accounting practice (unit

costs):

If the Beneficiary has a "Certificate on Methodology to calculate unit costs " (CoMUC) approved

by the Commission, the Beneficiary provides the Auditor with a description of the approved

methodology and the Commission’s letter of acceptance. The Auditor verified that the

29) The Beneficiary applied

[choose one option and delete

the other]:

[Option I: “Unit costs (hourly

rates) were calculated in

accordance with the

Beneficiary’s usual cost


15


Result

(C / E /

N.A.)

Beneficiary has indeed used the methodology approved. If so, no further verification is necessary.

If the Beneficiary does not have a "Certificate on Methodology" (CoMUC) approved by the

Commission, or if the methodology approved was not applied, then the Auditor:

o reviewed the documentation provided by the Beneficiary, including manuals and internal

guidelines that explain how to calculate hourly rates;

o recalculated the unit costs (hourly rates) of staff included in the sample following the

results of the procedures carried out in A.1 and A.2.

II) For individual hourly rates:

The Auditor:

o reviewed the documentation provided by the Beneficiary, including manuals and internal

guidelines that explain how to calculate hourly rates;

o recalculated the hourly rates of staff included in the sample (recalculation of all hourly

rates if the Beneficiary uses annual rates, recalculation of three months selected randomly

for every year and person if the Beneficiary uses monthly rates) following the results of

the procedures carried out in A.1 and A.2;

o (only in case of monthly rates) confirmed that the time spent on parental leave is not

deducted, and that, if parts of the basic remuneration are generated over a period longer

than a month, the Beneficiary has included only the share which is generated in the

month.

“UNIT COSTS CALCULATED BY THE BENEFICIARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS USUAL COST

ACCOUNTING PRACTICES”:

IT IS CALCULATED BY DIVIDING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PERSONNEL COSTS OF THE CATEGORY TO

WHICH THE EMPLOYEE BELONGS VERIFIED IN LINE WITH PROCEDURE A.1 BY THE NUMBER OF FTE

AND THE ANNUAL TOTAL PRODUCTIVE HOURS OF THE SAME CATEGORY CALCULATED BY THE

BENEFICIARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURE A.2.

accounting practices”]

[Option II: Individual hourly

rates were applied]

For option I concerning unit costs

and if the Beneficiary applies the

methodology approved by the

Commission (CoMUC):

30) The Beneficiary used the

Commission-approved metho-

dology to calculate hourly

rates. It corresponded to the

organisation's usual cost

accounting practices and was

applied consistently for all

activities irrespective of the

source of funding.

For option I concerning unit costs

and if the Beneficiary applies a

methodology not approved by the

Commission:

31) The unit costs re-calculated by

the Auditor were the same as

the rates applied by the

Beneficiary.

For option II concerning individual

hourly rates:

32) The individual rates re-


16


Result

(C / E /

N.A.)

HOURLY RATE FOR INDIVIDUAL ACTUAL PERSONAL COSTS:

IT IS CALCULATED FOLLOWING ONE OF THE TWO OPTIONS BELOW:

A) [OPTION BY DEFAULT] BY DIVIDING THE ACTUAL ANNUAL AMOUNT OF PERSONNEL COSTS OF AN

EMPLOYEE VERIFIED IN LINE WITH PROCEDURE A.1 BY THE NUMBER OF ANNUAL PRODUCTIVE HOURS

VERIFIED IN LINE WITH PROCEDURE A.2 (FULL FINANCIAL YEAR HOURLY RATE);

B) BY DIVIDING THE ACTUAL MONTHLY AMOUNT OF PERSONNEL COSTS OF AN EMPLOYEE VERIFIED IN

LINE WITH PROCEDURE A.1 BY 1/12 OF THE NUMBER OF ANNUAL PRODUCTIVE HOURS VERIFIED IN

LINE WITH PROCEDURE A.2.(MONTHLY HOURLY RATE).

calculated by the Auditor were

the same as the rates applied by

the Beneficiary.

32.1) The Beneficiary used only

one option (per full financial

year or per month) throughout

each financial year examined.

A.4 TIME RECORDING SYSTEM

To verify that the time recording system ensures the fulfilment of all minimum requirements and

that the hours declared for the action were correct, accurate and properly authorised and

supported by documentation, the Auditor made the following checks for the persons included in

the sample that declare time as worked for the action on the basis of time records:

o description of the time recording system provided by the Beneficiary (registration,

authorisation, processing in the HR-system);

o its actual implementation;

o time records were signed at least monthly by the employees (on paper or electronically)

and authorised by the project manager or another manager;

o the hours declared were worked within the project period;

o there were no hours declared as worked for the action if HR-records showed absence due

to holidays or sickness (further cross-checks with travels are carried out in B.1 below) ;

o the hours charged to the action matched those in the time recording system.

33) All persons recorded their time

dedicated to the action on a

daily/ weekly/ monthly basis

using a paper/computer-

based system. (delete the

answers that are not

applicable)

34) Their time-records were

authorised at least monthly by

the project manager or other

superior.

35) Hours declared were worked

within the project period and

were consistent with the

presences/absences recorded in

HR-records.


17


Result

(C / E /

N.A.)

ONLY THE HOURS WORKED ON THE ACTION CAN BE CHARGED. ALL WORKING TIME TO BE CHARGED

SHOULD BE RECORDED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT, ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY

EVIDENCE OF THEIR REALITY AND RELIABILITY (SEE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS BELOW FOR PERSONS

WORKING EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE ACTION WITHOUT TIME RECORDS).

36) There were no discrepancies

between the number of hours

charged to the action and the

number of hours recorded.

If the persons are working exclusively for the action and without time records

For the persons selected that worked exclusively for the action without time records, the Auditor

verified evidence available demonstrating that they were in reality exclusively dedicated to the

action and that the Beneficiary signed a declaration confirming that they have worked exclusively

for the action.

37) The exclusive dedication is

supported by a declaration

signed by the Beneficiary’s and

by any other evidence

gathered.

B COSTS OF SUBCONTRACTING

B.1 The Auditor obtained the detail/breakdown of subcontracting costs and sampled ______

cost items selected randomly (full coverage is required if there are fewer than 10 items,

otherwise the sample should have a minimum of 10 item, or 10% of the total, whichever number

is highest).

To confirm standard factual findings 38-42 listed in the next column, the Auditor reviewed the

following for the items included in the sample:

o the use of subcontractors was foreseen in Annex 1;

o subcontracting costs were declared in the subcontracting category of the Financial

Statement;

o supporting documents on the selection and award procedure were followed;

o the Beneficiary ensured best value for money (key elements to appreciate the respect of

this principle are the award of the subcontract to the bid offering best price-quality ratio,

under conditions of transparency and equal treatment. In case an existing framework

contract was used the Beneficiary ensured it was established on the basis of the principle

of best value for money under conditions of transparency and equal treatment).

38) The use of claimed

subcontracting costs was

foreseen in Annex 1 and costs

were declared in the Financial

Statements under the

subcontracting category.

39) There were documents of

requests to different providers,

different offers and assessment

of the offers before selection of

the provider in line with

internal procedures and

procurement rules.

Subcontracts were awarded in

accordance with the principle

of best value for money.

(When different offers were not

collected the Auditor explains


18


Result

(C / E /

N.A.)

In particular,

i. if the Beneficiary acted as a contracting authority within the meaning of Directive

2004/18/EC (or 2014/24/EU) or of Directive 2004/17/EC (or 2014/25/EU), the Auditor

verified that the applicable national law on public procurement was followed and that the

subcontracting complied with the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement.

ii. if the Beneficiary did not fall under the above-mentioned category the Auditor verified

that the Beneficiary followed their usual procurement rules and respected the Terms and

Conditions of the Agreement..

For the items included in the sample the Auditor also verified that:

o the subcontracts were not awarded to other Beneficiaries in the consortium;

o there were signed agreements between the Beneficiary and the subcontractor;

o there was evidence that the services were provided by subcontractor;

the reasons provided by the

Beneficiary under the caption

“Exceptions” of the Report.

The Commission will analyse

this information to evaluate

whether these costs might be

accepted as eligible)

40) The subcontracts were not

awarded to other Beneficiaries

of the consortium.

41) All subcontracts were

supported by signed

agreements between the

Beneficiary and the

subcontractor.

42) There was evidence that the

services were provided by the

subcontractors.

C COSTS OF PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THIRD PARTIES

C.1 The Auditor obtained the detail/breakdown of the costs of providing financial support to

third parties and sampled ______ cost items selected randomly (full coverage is required if

there are fewer than 10 items, otherwise the sample should have a minimum of 10 item, or 10% of

the total, whichever number is highest).

The Auditor verified that the following minimum conditions were met:

a) the maximum amount of financial support for each third party did not exceed EUR 60

000, unless explicitly mentioned in Annex 1;

43) All minimum conditions were

met


19


Result

(C / E /

N.A.)

b) the financial support to third parties was agreed in Annex 1 of the Agreement and the

other provisions on financial support to third parties included in Annex 1 were respected.


20

D OTHER ACTUAL DIRECT COSTS

D.1 COSTS OF TRAVEL AND RELATED SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES

The Auditor sampled ______ cost items selected randomly (full coverage is required if there

are fewer than 10 items, otherwise the sample should have a minimum of 10 item, or 10% of the

total, whichever number is the highest).

The Auditor inspected the sample and verified that:

o travel and subsistence costs were consistent with the Beneficiary's usual policy for travel.

In this context, the Beneficiary provided evidence of its normal policy for travel costs

(e.g. use of first class tickets, reimbursement by the Beneficiary on the basis of actual

costs, a lump sum or per diem) to enable the Auditor to compare the travel costs charged

with this policy;

o travel costs are correctly identified and allocated to the action (e.g. trips are directly

linked to the action) by reviewing relevant supporting documents such as minutes of

meetings, workshops or conferences, their registration in the correct project account, their

consistency with time records or with the dates/duration of the workshop/conference;

o no ineligible costs or excessive or reckless expenditure was declared.

44) Costs were incurred, approved

and reimbursed in line with the

Beneficiary's usual policy for

travels.

45) There was a link between the

trip and the action.

46) The supporting documents

were consistent with each other

regarding subject of the trip,

dates, duration and reconciled

with time records and

accounting.

47) No ineligible costs or excessive

or reckless expenditure was

declared.

D.2 DEPRECIATION COSTS FOR EQUIPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE OR OTHER

ASSETS



total, whichever number is the highest).

For “equipment, infrastructure or other assets” [from now on called “asset(s)”] selected in the

sample the Auditor verified that:

o the assets were acquired in conformity with the Beneficiary's internal guidelines and

procedures;

o they were correctly allocated to the action (with supporting documents such as delivery

48) Procurement rules, principles

and guides were followed.

49) There was a link between the

grant agreement and the asset

charged to the action.

50) The asset charged to the action

was traceable to the accounting

records and the underlying

documents.


21

note invoice or any other proof demonstrating the link to the action)

o they were entered in the accounting system;

o the extent to which the assets were used for the action (as a percentage) was supported by

reliable documentation (e.g. usage overview table);

The Auditor recalculated the depreciation costs and verified that they were in line with the

applicable rules in the Beneficiary’s country and with the Beneficiary’s usual accounting policy

(e.g. depreciation calculated on the acquisition value).

The Auditor verified that no ineligible costs such as deductible VAT, exchange rate losses,

excessive or reckless expenditure were declared (see Article 6.5 GA).

51) The depreciation method used

to charge the asset to the action

was in line with the applicable

rules of the Beneficiary's

country and the Beneficiary's

usual accounting policy.

52) The amount charged

corresponded to the actual

usage for the action.


or reckless expenditure were

declared.

D.3 COSTS OF OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES



total, whichever number is highest).

For the purchase of goods, works or services included in the sample the Auditor verified that:

o the contracts did not cover tasks described in Annex 1;

o they were correctly identified, allocated to the proper action, entered in the accounting

system (traceable to underlying documents such as purchase orders, invoices and

accounting);

o the goods were not placed in the inventory of durable equipment;

o the costs charged to the action were accounted in line with the Beneficiary’s usual

accounting practices;

o no ineligible costs or excessive or reckless expenditure were declared (see Article 6 GA).

In addition, the Auditor verified that these goods and services were acquired in conformity with

the Beneficiary's internal guidelines and procedures, in particular:

o if Beneficiary acted as a contracting authority within the meaning of Directive

54) Contracts for works or services

did not cover tasks described in

Annex 1.

55) Costs were allocated to the

correct action and the goods

were not placed in the

inventory of durable

equipment.

56) The costs were charged in line

with the Beneficiary’s

accounting policy and were

adequately supported.


or reckless expenditure were

declared. For internal

invoices/charges only the cost

element was charged, without

any mark-ups.


22

2004/18/EC (or 2014/24/EU) or of Directive 2004/17/EC (or 2014/25/EU), the Auditor

verified that the applicable national law on public procurement was followed and that the

procurement contract complied with the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement.

o if the Beneficiary did not fall into the category above, the Auditor verified that the

Beneficiary followed their usual procurement rules and respected the Terms and

Conditions of the Agreement.

For the items included in the sample the Auditor also verified that:

o the Beneficiary ensured best value for money (key elements to appreciate the respect of

this principle are the award of the contract to the bid offering best price-quality ratio,

under conditions of transparency and equal treatment. In case an existing framework

contract was used the Auditor also verified that the Beneficiary ensured it was established

on the basis of the principle of best value for money under conditions of transparency and

equal treatment);

SUCH GOODS AND SERVICES INCLUDE, FOR INSTANCE, CONSUMABLES AND SUPPLIES, DISSEMINATION

(INCLUDING OPEN ACCESS), PROTECTION OF RESULTS, SPECIFIC EVALUATION OF THE ACTION IF IT IS

REQUIRED BY THE AGREEMENT, CERTIFICATES ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IF THEY ARE

REQUIRED BY THE AGREEMENT AND CERTIFICATES ON THE METHODOLOGY, TRANSLATIONS,

REPRODUCTION.

58) Procurement rules, principles

and guides were followed.

There were documents of

requests to different providers,

different offers and assessment

of the offers before selection of

the provider in line with

internal procedures and

procurement rules. The

purchases were made in

accordance with the principle

of best value for money.

(When different offers were not

collected the Auditor explains

the reasons provided by the

Beneficiary under the caption

“Exceptions” of the Report.

The Commission will analyse

this information to evaluate

whether these costs might be

accepted as eligible)

D.4 AGGREGATED CAPITALISED AND OPERATING COSTS OF RESEARCH

INFRASTRUCTURE

The Auditor ensured the existence of a positive ex-ante assessment (issued by the EC Services) of

the cost accounting methodology of the Beneficiary allowing it to apply the guidelines on direct

costing for large research infrastructures in Horizon 2020.

In the cases that a positive ex-ante assessment has been issued (see the standard factual

findings 59-60 on the next column),

59) The costs declared as direct

costs for Large Research

Infrastructures (in the

appropriate line of the

Financial Statement) comply

with the methodology

described in the positive ex-

ante assessment report.


23

The Auditor ensured that the beneficiary has applied consistently the methodology that is

explained and approved in the positive ex ante assessment;

In the cases that a positive ex-ante assessment has NOT been issued (see the standard factual

findings 61 on the next column),

The Auditor verified that no costs of Large Research Infrastructure have been charged as

direct costs in any costs category;

In the cases that a draft ex-ante assessment report has been issued with recommendation for

further changes (see the standard factual findings 61 on the next column),

The Auditor followed the same procedure as above (when a positive ex-ante assessment has

NOT yet been issued) and paid particular attention (testing reinforced) to the cost items for

which the draft ex-ante assessment either rejected the inclusion as direct costs for Large

Research Infrastructures or issued recommendations.

60) Any difference between the

methodology applied and the

one positively assessed was

extensively described and

adjusted accordingly.

61) The direct costs declared were

free from any indirect costs

items related to the Large

Research Infrastructure.

E USE OF EXCHANGE RATES

E.1 a) For Beneficiaries with accounts established in a currency other than euros

The Auditor sampled ______ cost items selected randomly and verified that the exchange

rates used for converting other currencies into euros were in accordance with the following

rules established in the Agreement ( full coverage is required if there are fewer than 10 items,


is highest):

COSTS RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNTS IN A CURRENCY OTHER THAN EURO SHALL BE CONVERTED INTO

EURO AT THE AVERAGE OF THE DAILY EXCHANGE RATES PUBLISHED IN THE C SERIES OF OFFICIAL

JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

(https://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/index.en.html ), DETERMINED OVER THE

CORRESPONDING REPORTING PERIOD.

IF NO DAILY EURO EXCHANGE RATE IS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN

UNION FOR THE CURRENCY IN QUESTION, CONVERSION SHALL BE MADE AT THE AVERAGE OF THE

MONTHLY ACCOUNTING RATES ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION AND PUBLISHED ON ITS WEBSITE

(http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/inforeuro/inforeuro_en.cfm ),

DETERMINED OVER THE CORRESPONDING REPORTING PERIOD.

62) The exchange rates used to

convert other currencies into

Euros were in accordance with

the rules established of the

Grant Agreement and there

was no difference in the final

figures.


https://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/index.en.html

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/contracts_grants/info_contracts/inforeuro/inforeuro_en.cfm

24

b) For Beneficiaries with accounts established in euros

The Auditor sampled ______ cost items selected randomly and verified that the exchange

rates used for converting other currencies into euros were in accordance with the following

rules established in the Agreement ( full coverage is required if there are fewer than 10 items,


is highest):

COSTS INCURRED IN ANOTHER CURRENCY SHALL BE CONVERTED INTO EURO BY APPLYING THE

BENEFICIARY’S USUAL ACCOUNTING PRACTICES.

63) The Beneficiary applied its

usual accounting practices.

[legal name of the audit firm]

[name and function of an authorised representative]

[dd Month yyyy]

<Signature of the Auditor>




1

ANNEX 6

MODEL FOR THE CERTIFICATE ON THE METHODOLOGY

For options [in italics in square brackets]: choose the applicable option. Options not chosen should be deleted.

For fields in [grey in square brackets]: enter the appropriate data.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR AN AUDIT ENGAGEMENT FOR A METHODOLOGY CERTIFICATE IN

CONNECTION WITH ONE OR MORE GRANT AGREEMENTS FINANCED UNDER THE HORIZON 2020

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

INDEPENDENT REPORT OF FACTUAL FINDINGS ON THE METHODOLOGY CONCERNING GRANT

AGREEMENTS FINANCED UNDER THE HORIZON 2020 RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME




2

Terms of reference for an audit engagement for a methodology certificate

in connection with one or more grant agreements financed

under the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme

This document sets out the ‘Terms of Reference (ToR)’ under which

[OPTION 1: [insert name of the beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)] [OPTION 2: [insert name of the

linked third party] (‘the Linked Third Party’), third party linked to the Beneficiary [insert name of the

beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)]

agrees to engage

[insert legal name of the auditor] (‘the Auditor’)

to produce an independent report of factual findings (‘the Report’) concerning the [Beneficiary’s]

[Linked Third Party’s] usual accounting practices for calculating and claiming direct personnel costs

declared as unit costs (‘the Methodology’) in connection with grant agreements financed under the

Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme.

The procedures to be carried out for the assessment of the methodology will be based on the grant

agreement(s) detailed below:

[title and number of the grant agreement(s)] (‘the Agreement(s)’)

The Agreement(s) has(have) been concluded between the Beneficiary and [OPTION 1: the European

Union, represented by the European Commission (‘the Commission’)][ OPTION 2: the European

Atomic Energy Community (Euratom,) represented by the European Commission (‘the

Commission’)][OPTION 3: the [Research Executive Agency (REA)] [European Research Council

Executive Agency (ERCEA)] [Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)] [Executive Agency

for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME)] (‘the Agency’), under the powers delegated by the

European Commission (‘the Commission’).].

The [Commission] [Agency] is mentioned as a signatory of the Agreement with the Beneficiary only.

The [European Union] [Euratom] [Agency] is not a party to this engagement.

1.1 Subject of the engagement

According to Article 18.1.2 of the Agreement, beneficiaries [and linked third parties] that declare

direct personnel costs as unit costs calculated in accordance with their usual cost accounting practices

may submit to the [Commission] [Agency], for approval, a certificate on the methodology (‘CoMUC’)

stating that there are adequate records and documentation to prove that their cost accounting practices

used comply with the conditions set out in Point A of Article 6.2.

The subject of this engagement is the CoMUC which is composed of two separate documents:

- the Terms of Reference (‘the ToR’) to be signed by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]

and the Auditor;

- the Auditor’s Independent Report of Factual Findings (‘the Report’) issued on the Auditor’s

letterhead, dated, stamped and signed by the Auditor which includes; the standard statements

(‘the Statements’) evaluated and signed by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party], the agreed-

upon procedures (‘the Procedures’) performed by the Auditor and the standard factual findings




3

(‘the Findings’) assessed by the Auditor. The Statements, Procedures and Findings are

summarised in the table that forms part of the Report.

The information provided through the Statements, the Procedures and the Findings will enable the

Commission to draw conclusions regarding the existence of the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s]

usual cost accounting practice and its suitability to ensure that direct personnel costs claimed on that

basis comply with the provisions of the Agreement. The Commission draws its own conclusions from

the Report and any additional information it may require.

1.2 Responsibilities

The parties to this agreement are the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] and the Auditor.

The [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]:

is responsible for preparing financial statements for the Agreement(s) (‘the Financial

Statements’) in compliance with those Agreements;

is responsible for providing the Financial Statement(s) to the Auditor and enabling the Auditor

to reconcile them with the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] accounting and

bookkeeping system and the underlying accounts and records. The Financial Statement(s) will

be used as a basis for the procedures which the Auditor will carry out under this ToR;

is responsible for its Methodology and liable for the accuracy of the Financial Statement(s);

is responsible for endorsing or refuting the Statements indicated under the heading

‘Statements to be made by the Beneficiary/ Linked Third Party’ in the first column of the table

that forms part of the Report;

must provide the Auditor with a signed and dated representation letter;

accepts that the ability of the Auditor to carry out the Procedures effectively depends upon the

[Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] providing full and free access to the [Beneficiary’s]

[Linked Third Party’s] staff and to its accounting and other relevant records.

The Auditor:

[Option 1 by default: is qualified to carry out statutory audits of accounting documents in

accordance with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17

May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending

Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive

84/253/EEC or similar national regulations].

[Option 2 if the Beneficiary or Linked Third Party has an independent Public Officer: is a

competent and independent Public Officer for which the relevant national authorities have

established the legal capacity to audit the Beneficiary].

[Option 3 if the Beneficiary or Linked Third Party is an international organisation: is an

[internal] [external] auditor in accordance with the internal financial regulations and

procedures of the international organisation].

The Auditor:

must be independent from the Beneficiary [and the Linked Third Party], in particular, it must

not have been involved in preparing the Beneficiary’s [and Linked Third Party’s] Financial

Statement(s);

must plan work so that the Procedures may be carried out and the Findings may be assessed;

must adhere to the Procedures laid down and the compulsory report format;

must carry out the engagement in accordance with these ToR;

must document matters which are important to support the Report;

must base its Report on the evidence gathered;

must submit the Report to the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party].




4

The Commission sets out the Procedures to be carried out and the Findings to be endorsed by the

Auditor. The Auditor is not responsible for their suitability or pertinence. As this engagement is not an

assurance engagement the Auditor does not provide an audit opinion or a statement of assurance.

1.3 Applicable Standards

The Auditor must comply with these Terms of Reference and with1:

- the International Standard on Related Services (‘ISRS’) 4400 Engagements to perform

Agreed-upon Procedures regarding Financial Information as issued by the International

Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB);

- the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants issued by the International Ethics Standards

Board for Accountants (IESBA). Although ISRS 4400 states that independence is not a

requirement for engagements to carry out agreed-upon procedures, the Commission requires

that the Auditor also complies with the Code’s independence requirements.

The Auditor’s Report must state that there was no conflict of interests in establishing this Report

between the Auditor and the Beneficiary [and the Linked Third Party] that could have a bearing on the

Report, and must specify – if the service is invoiced - the total fee paid to the Auditor for providing the

Report.

1.4 Reporting

The Report must be written in the language of the Agreement (see Article 20.7 of the Agreement).

Under Article 22 of the Agreement, the Commission, [the Agency], the European Anti-Fraud Office

and the Court of Auditors have the right to audit any work that is carried out under the action and for

which costs are declared from [the European Union] [Euratom] budget. This includes work related to

this engagement. The Auditor must provide access to all working papers related to this assignment if

the Commission[, the Agency], the European Anti-Fraud Office or the European Court of Auditors

requests them.

1.5 Timing

The Report must be provided by [dd Month yyyy].

1.6 Other Terms

[The [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] and the Auditor can use this section to agree other specific

terms, such as the Auditor’s fees, liability, applicable law, etc. Those specific terms must not

contradict the terms specified above.]

[legal name of the Auditor] [legal name of the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]]

[name & title of authorised representative] [name & title of authorised representative]


Signature of the Auditor Signature Signature of the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]

1 Supreme Audit Institutions applying INTOSAI-standards may carry out the Procedures according to the

corresponding International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions and code of ethics issued by INTOSAI

instead of the International Standard on Related Services (‘ISRS’) 4400 and the Code of Ethics for

Professional Accountants issued by the IAASB and the IESBA.




5

Independent report of factual findings on the methodology concerning grant agreements

financed under the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme

(To be printed on letterhead paper of the auditor)

To

[ name of contact person(s)], [Position]

[[Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] name]

[ Address]

[ dd Month yyyy]

Dear [Name of contact person(s)],

As agreed under the terms of reference dated [dd Month yyyy]

with [OPTION 1: [insert name of the beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)] [OPTION 2: [insert name of

the linked third party] (‘the Linked Third Party’), third party linked to the Beneficiary [insert name of

the beneficiary] (‘the Beneficiary’)],

we

[ name of the auditor] (‘the Auditor’),

established at

[full address/city/state/province/country],

represented by

[name and function of an authorised representative],

have carried out the agreed-upon procedures (‘the Procedures’) and provide hereby our Independent

Report of Factual Findings (‘the Report’), concerning the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third Party’s] usual

accounting practices for calculating and declaring direct personnel costs declared as unit costs (‘the

Methodology’).

You requested certain procedures to be carried out in connection with the grant(s)

[title and number of the grant agreement(s)] (‘the Agreement(s)’).

The Report

Our engagement was carried out in accordance with the terms of reference (‘the ToR’) appended to

this Report. The Report includes: the standard statements (‘the Statements’) made by the [Beneficiary]

[Linked Third Party], the agreed-upon procedures (‘the Procedures’) carried out and the standard

factual findings (‘the Findings’) confirmed by us.

The engagement involved carrying out the Procedures and assessing the Findings and the

documentation requested appended to this Report, the results of which the Commission uses to draw

conclusions regarding the acceptability of the Methodology applied by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third

Party].




6

The Report covers the methodology used from [dd Month yyyy]. In the event that the [Beneficiary]

[Linked Third Party] changes this methodology, the Report will not be applicable to any Financial

Statement1 submitted thereafter.

The scope of the Procedures and the definition of the standard statements and findings were

determined solely by the Commission. Therefore, the Auditor is not responsible for their suitability or

pertinence.

Since the Procedures carried out constitute neither an audit nor a review made in accordance with

International Standards on Auditing or International Standards on Review Engagements, we do not

give a statement of assurance on the costs declared on the basis of the [Beneficiary’s] [Linked Third

Party’s] Methodology. Had we carried out additional procedures or had we performed an audit or

review in accordance with these standards, other matters might have come to its attention and would

have been included in the Report.

Exceptions

Apart from the exceptions listed below, the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] agreed with the

standard Statements and provided the Auditor all the documentation and accounting information

needed by the Auditor to carry out the requested Procedures and corroborate the standard Findings.

List here any exception and add any information on the cause and possible consequences of each

exception, if known. If the exception is quantifiable, also indicate the corresponding amount.

…..

Explanation of possible exceptions in the form of examples (to be removed from the Report):

i. the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] did not agree with the standard Statement number … because…;

ii. the Auditor could not carry out the procedure … established because …. (e.g. due to the inability to

reconcile key information or the unavailability or inconsistency of data);

iii. the Auditor could not confirm or corroborate the standard Finding number … because ….

Remarks

We would like to add the following remarks relevant for the proper understanding of the Methodology

applied by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] or the results reported:


Regarding the methodology applied to calculate hourly rates …

Regarding standard Finding 15 it has to be noted that …

The [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] explained the deviation from the benchmark statement XXIV

concerning time recording for personnel with no exclusive dedication to the action in the following manner:

…

Annexes

Please provide the following documents to the auditor and annex them to the report when submitting

this CoMUC to the Commission:

1 Financial Statement in this context refers solely to Annex 4 of the Agreement by which the Beneficiary

declares costs under the Agreement.




7

1. Brief description of the methodology for calculating personnel costs, productive hours and

hourly rates;

2. Brief description of the time recording system in place;

3. An example of the time records used by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party];

4. Description of any budgeted or estimated elements applied, together with an explanation as to

why they are relevant for calculating the personnel costs and how they are based on objective

and verifiable information;

5. A summary sheet with the hourly rate for direct personnel declared by the [Beneficiary]

[Linked Third Party] and recalculated by the Auditor for each staff member included in the

sample (the names do not need to be reported);

6. A comparative table summarising for each person selected in the sample a) the time claimed

by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] in the Financial Statement(s) and b) the time

according to the time record verified by the Auditor;

7. A copy of the letter of representation provided to the Auditor.

Use of this Report

This Report has been drawn up solely for the purpose given under Point 1.1 Reasons for the

engagement.

The Report:

- is confidential and is intended to be submitted to the Commission by the [Beneficiary] [Linked

Third Party] in connection with Article 18.1.2 of the Agreement;

- may not be used by the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party] or by the Commission for any other

purpose, nor distributed to any other parties;

- may be disclosed by the Commission only to authorised parties, in particular the European

Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the European Court of Auditors.

- relates only to the usual cost accounting practices specified above and does not constitute a

report on the Financial Statements of the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party].

No conflict of interest2 exists between the Auditor and the Beneficiary [and the Linked Third Party]

that could have a bearing on the Report. The total fee paid to the Auditor for producing the Report was

EUR ______ (including EUR ______ of deductible VAT).

We look forward to discussing our Report with you and would be pleased to provide any further

information or assistance which may be required.

Yours sincerely

[legal name of the Auditor]

[name and title of the authorised representative]

[dd Month yyyy]

Signature of the Auditor

2 A conflict of interest arises when the Auditor's objectivity to establish the certificate is compromised in fact

or in appearance when the Auditor for instance:

- was involved in the preparation of the Financial Statements;

- stands to benefit directly should the certificate be accepted;

- has a close relationship with any person representing the beneficiary;

- is a director, trustee or partner of the beneficiary; or

- is in any other situation that compromises his or her independence or ability to establish the certificate

impartially.


8

Statements to be made by the Beneficiary/Linked Third Party (‘the Statements’) and Procedures to be carried out by the Auditor (‘the

Procedures’) and standard factual findings (‘the Findings’) to be confirmed by the Auditor

The Commission reserves the right to provide the auditor with guidance regarding the Statements to be made, the Procedures to be carried out or the

Findings to be ascertained and the way in which to present them. The Commission reserves the right to vary the Statements, Procedures or Findings by

written notification to the Beneficiary/Linked Third Party to adapt the procedures to changes in the grant agreement(s) or to any other circumstances.

If this methodology certificate relates to the Linked Third Party’s usual accounting practices for calculating and claiming direct personnel costs declared as

unit costs any reference here below to ‘the Beneficiary’ is to be considered as a reference to ‘the Linked Third Party’.

Please explain any discrepancies in the body of the Report.

Statements to be made by Beneficiary Procedures to be carried out and Findings to be confirmed by the Auditor

A. Use of the Methodology

I. The cost accounting practice described below has been in use since [dd

Month yyyy].

II. The next planned alteration to the methodology used by the Beneficiary

will be from [dd Month yyyy].

Procedure:

The Auditor checked these dates against the documentation the Beneficiary

has provided.

Factual finding:

1. The dates provided by the Beneficiary were consistent with the

documentation.

B. Description of the Methodology

III. The methodology to calculate unit costs is being used in a consistent

manner and is reflected in the relevant procedures.

[Please describe the methodology your entity uses to calculate personnel costs,

productive hours and hourly rates, present your description to the Auditor and

annex it to this certificate]

[If the statement of section “B. Description of the methodology” cannot be

endorsed by the Beneficiary or there is no written methodology to calculate unit

costs it should be listed here below and reported as exception by the Auditor in the

main Report of Factual Findings:

- …]

Procedure:

The Auditor reviewed the description, the relevant manuals and/or internal

guidance documents describing the methodology.

Factual finding:

2. The brief description was consistent with the relevant manuals, internal

guidance and/or other documentary evidence the Auditor has reviewed.

3. The methodology was generally applied by the Beneficiary as part of its

usual costs accounting practices.

C. Personnel costs

General

Procedure:

The Auditor draws a sample of employees to carry out the procedures indicated in


9



IV. The unit costs (hourly rates) are limited to salaries including during

parental leave, social security contributions, taxes and other costs included

in the remuneration required under national law and the employment

contract or equivalent appointing act;

V. Employees are hired directly by the Beneficiary in accordance with

national law, and work under its sole supervision and responsibility;

VI. The Beneficiary remunerates its employees in accordance with its usual

practices. This means that personnel costs are charged in line with the

Beneficiary’s usual payroll policy (e.g. salary policy, overtime policy,

variable pay) and no special conditions exist for employees assigned to

tasks relating to the European Union or Euratom, unless explicitly provided

for in the grant agreement(s);

VII. The Beneficiary allocates its employees to the relevant group/category/cost

centre for the purpose of the unit cost calculation in line with the usual cost

accounting practice;

VIII. Personnel costs are based on the payroll system and accounting system.

IX. Any exceptional adjustments of actual personnel costs resulted from

relevant budgeted or estimated elements and were based on objective and

verifiable information. [Please describe the ‘budgeted or estimated

elements’ and their relevance to personnel costs, and explain how they

were reasonable and based on objective and verifiable information, present

your explanation to the Auditor and annex it to this certificate].

X. Personnel costs claimed do not contain any of the following ineligible

costs: costs related to return on capital; debt and debt service charges;

provisions for future losses or debts; interest owed; doubtful debts;

currency exchange losses; bank costs charged by the Beneficiary’s bank for

transfers from the Commission/Agency; excessive or reckless expenditure;

deductible VAT or costs incurred during suspension of the implementation

of the action.

XI. Personnel costs were not declared under another EU or Euratom grant

(including grants awarded by a Member State and financed by the EU

budget and grants awarded by bodies other than the Commission/Agency

for the purpose of implementing the EU budget).

this section C and the following sections D to F.

[The Auditor has drawn a random sample of 10 full-time equivalents made up of

employees assigned to the action(s). If fewer than 10 full-time equivalents are

assigned to the action(s), the Auditor has selected a sample of 10 full-time

equivalents consisting of all employees assigned to the action(s), complemented by

other employees irrespective of their assignments.]. For this sample:

the Auditor reviewed all documents relating to personnel costs such as

employment contracts, payslips, payroll policy (e.g. salary policy, overtime

policy, variable pay policy), accounting and payroll records, applicable

national tax , labour and social security law and any other documents

corroborating the personnel costs claimed;

in particular, the Auditor reviewed the employment contracts of the

employees in the sample to verify that:

i. they were employed directly by the Beneficiary in accordance with

applicable national legislation;

ii. they were working under the sole technical supervision and

responsibility of the latter;

iii. they were remunerated in accordance with the Beneficiary’s usual

practices;

iv. they were allocated to the correct group/category/cost centre for the

purposes of calculating the unit cost in line with the Beneficiary’s

usual cost accounting practices;

the Auditor verified that any ineligible items or any costs claimed under

other costs categories or costs covered by other types of grant or by other

grants financed from the European Union budget have not been taken into

account when calculating the personnel costs;

the Auditor numerically reconciled the total amount of personnel costs used

to calculate the unit cost with the total amount of personnel costs recorded

in the statutory accounts and the payroll system.

to the extent that actual personnel costs were adjusted on the basis of

budgeted or estimated elements, the Auditor carefully examined those

elements and checked the information source to confirm that they

correspond to objective and verifiable information;


10



If additional remuneration as referred to in the grant agreement(s) is paid

XII. The Beneficiary is a non-profit legal entity;

XIII. The additional remuneration is part of the beneficiary’s usual remuneration

practices and paid consistently whenever the relevant work or expertise is

required;

XIV. The criteria used to calculate the additional remuneration are objective and

generally applied regardless of the source of funding;

XV. The additional remuneration included in the personnel costs used to

calculate the hourly rates for the grant agreement(s) is capped at

EUR 8 000 per full-time equivalent (reduced proportionately if the

employee is not assigned exclusively to the action).

[If certain statement(s) of section “C. Personnel costs” cannot be endorsed by the

Beneficiary they should be listed here below and reported as exception by the

Auditor in the main Report of Factual Findings:

- …]

if additional remuneration has been claimed, the Auditor verified that the

Beneficiary was a non-profit legal entity, that the amount was capped at

EUR 8 000 per full-time equivalent and that it was reduced proportionately

for employees not assigned exclusively to the action(s).

the Auditor recalculated the personnel costs for the employees in the

sample.

Factual finding:

4. All the components of the remuneration that have been claimed as personnel

costs are supported by underlying documentation.

5. The employees in the sample were employed directly by the Beneficiary in

accordance with applicable national law and were working under its sole

supervision and responsibility.

6. Their employment contracts were in line with the Beneficiary’s usual

policy;

7. Personnel costs were duly documented and consisted solely of salaries,

social security contributions (pension contributions, health insurance,

unemployment fund contributions, etc.), taxes and other statutory costs

included in the remuneration (holiday pay, thirteenth month’s pay, etc.);

8. The totals used to calculate the personnel unit costs are consistent with those

registered in the payroll and accounting records;

9. To the extent that actual personnel costs were adjusted on the basis of

budgeted or estimated elements, those elements were relevant for

calculating the personnel costs and correspond to objective and verifiable

information. The budgeted or estimated elements used are: — (indicate the

elements and their values).

10. Personnel costs contained no ineligible elements;

11. Specific conditions for eligibility were fulfilled when additional

remuneration was paid: a) the Beneficiary is registered in the grant

agreements as a non-profit legal entity; b) it was paid according to objective

criteria generally applied regardless of the source of funding used and c)

remuneration was capped at EUR 8 000 per full-time equivalent (or up to up

to the equivalent pro-rata amount if the person did not work on the action

full-time during the year or did not work exclusively on the action).


11



D. Productive hours

XVI. The number of productive hours per full-time employee applied is [delete

as appropriate]:

A. 1720 productive hours per year for a person working full-time

(corresponding pro-rata for persons not working full time).

B. the total number of hours worked in the year by a person for the

Beneficiary

C. the standard number of annual hours generally applied by the

beneficiary for its personnel in accordance with its usual cost

accounting practices. This number must be at least 90% of the

standard annual workable hours.

If method B is applied

XVII. The calculation of the total number of hours worked was done as

follows: annual workable hours of the person according to the

employment contract, applicable labour agreement or national law plus

overtime worked minus absences (such as sick leave and special leave).

XVIII. ‘Annual workable hours’ are hours during which the personnel must be

working, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his/her activity or

duties under the employment contract, applicable collective labour

agreement or national working time legislation.

XIX. The contract (applicable collective labour agreement or national

working time legislation) do specify the working time enabling to

calculate the annual workable hours.

If method C is applied

XX. The standard number of productive hours per year is that of a full-time

equivalent.

XXI. The number of productive hours per year on which the hourly rate is based

i) corresponds to the Beneficiary’s usual accounting practices; ii) is at least

90 % of the standard number of workable (working) hours per year.

XXII. Standard workable (working) hours are hours during which personnel are at

Procedure (same sample basis as for Section C: Personnel costs):

The Auditor verified that the number of productive hours applied is in

accordance with method A, B or C.

The Auditor checked that the number of productive hours per full-time

employee is correct.

If method B is applied the Auditor verified i) the manner in which the total

number of hours worked was done and ii) that the contract specified the

annual workable hours by inspecting all the relevant documents, national

legislation, labour agreements and contracts.

If method C is applied the Auditor reviewed the manner in which the

standard number of working hours per year has been calculated by

inspecting all the relevant documents, national legislation, labour

agreements and contracts and verified that the number of productive hours

per year used for these calculations was at least 90 % of the standard number

of working hours per year.

Factual finding:

General

12. The Beneficiary applied a number of productive hours consistent with

method A, B or C detailed in the left-hand column.

13. The number of productive hours per year per full-time employee was

accurate.

If method B is applied

14. The number of ‘annual workable hours’, overtime and absences was

verifiable based on the documents provided by the Beneficiary and the

calculation of the total number of hours worked was accurate.

15. The contract specified the working time enabling to calculate the annual

workable hours.

If method C is applied

16. The calculation of the number of productive hours per year corresponded to

the usual costs accounting practice of the Beneficiary.


12



the Beneficiary’s disposal preforming the duties described in the relevant

employment contract, collective labour agreement or national labour

legislation. The number of standard annual workable (working) hours that

the Beneficiary claims is supported by labour contracts, national legislation

and other documentary evidence.

[If certain statement(s) of section “D. Productive hours” cannot be endorsed by the


Auditor:

- …]

17. The calculation of the standard number of workable (working) hours per

year was corroborated by the documents presented by the Beneficiary.

18. The number of productive hours per year used for the calculation of the

hourly rate was at least 90 % of the number of workable (working) hours per

year.

E. Hourly rates

The hourly rates are correct because:

XXIII. Hourly rates are correctly calculated since they result from dividing annual

personnel costs by the productive hours of a given year and group (e.g.

staff category or department or cost centre depending on the methodology

applied) and they are in line with the statements made in section C. and D.

above.

[If the statement of section ‘E. Hourly rates’ cannot be endorsed by the Beneficiary

they should be listed here below and reported as exception by the Auditor:

- …]

Procedure

The Auditor has obtained a list of all personnel rates calculated by the

Beneficiary in accordance with the methodology used.

The Auditor has obtained a list of all the relevant employees, based on

which the personnel rate(s) are calculated.

For 10 full-time equivalent employees selected at random (same sample basis as

Section C: Personnel costs):

The Auditor recalculated the hourly rates.

The Auditor verified that the methodology applied corresponds to the usual

accounting practices of the organisation and is applied consistently for all

activities of the organisation on the basis of objective criteria irrespective of

the source of funding.

Factual finding:

19. No differences arose from the recalculation of the hourly rate for the

employees included in the sample.

F. Time recording

XXIV. Time recording is in place for all persons with no exclusive dedication to

one Horizon 2020 action. At least all hours worked in connection with the

grant agreement(s) are registered on a daily/weekly/monthly basis [delete

as appropriate] using a paper/computer-based system [delete as

appropriate];

XXV. For persons exclusively assigned to one Horizon 2020 activity the

Procedure

The Auditor reviewed the brief description, all relevant manuals and/or

internal guidance describing the methodology used to record time.

The Auditor reviewed the time records of the random sample of 10 full-time

equivalents referred to under Section C: Personnel costs, and verified in particular:


13



Beneficiary has either signed a declaration to that effect or has put

arrangements in place to record their working time;

XXVI. Records of time worked have been signed by the person concerned (on

paper or electronically) and approved by the action manager or line

manager at least monthly;

XXVII. Measures are in place to prevent staff from:

i. recording the same hours twice,

ii. recording working hours during absence periods (e.g. holidays, sick

leave),

iii. recording more than the number of productive hours per year used to

calculate the hourly rates, and

iv. recording hours worked outside the action period.

XXVIII. No working time was recorded outside the action period;

XXIX. No more hours were claimed than the productive hours used to calculate

the hourly personnel rates.

[Please provide a brief description of the time recording system in place together

with the measures applied to ensure its reliability to the Auditor and annex it to the

present certificate1].

[If certain statement(s) of section “F. Time recording” cannot be endorsed by the


that time records were available for all persons with not exclusive

assignment to the action;

that time records were available for persons working exclusively for a

Horizon 2020 action, or, alternatively, that a declaration signed by the

Beneficiary was available for them certifying that they were working

exclusively for a Horizon 2020 action;

that time records were signed and approved in due time and that all

minimum requirements were fulfilled;

that the persons worked for the action in the periods claimed;

that no more hours were claimed than the productive hours used to calculate

the hourly personnel rates;

that internal controls were in place to prevent that time is recorded twice,

during absences for holidays or sick leave; that more hours are claimed per

person per year for Horizon 2020 actions than the number of productive

hours per year used to calculate the hourly rates; that working time is

recorded outside the action period;

the Auditor cross-checked the information with human-resources records to

verify consistency and to ensure that the internal controls have been

effective. In addition, the Auditor has verified that no more hours were

charged to Horizon 2020 actions per person per year than the number of

productive hours per year used to calculate the hourly rates, and verified that

no time worked outside the action period was charged to the action.

Factual finding:

20. The brief description, manuals and/or internal guidance on time recording

provided by the Beneficiary were consistent with management

1 The description of the time recording system must state among others information on the content of the time records, its coverage (full or action time-recording, for all

personnel or only for personnel involved in H2020 actions), its degree of detail (whether there is a reference to the particular tasks accomplished), its form, periodicity of

the time registration and authorisation (paper or a computer-based system; on a daily, weekly or monthly basis; signed and countersigned by whom), controls applied to

prevent double-charging of time or ensure consistency with HR-records such as absences and travels as well as it information flow up to its use for the preparation of the

Financial Statements.


14



Auditor:

- …]

reports/records and other documents reviewed and were generally applied

by the Beneficiary to produce the financial statements.

21. For the random sample time was recorded or, in the case of employees

working exclusively for the action, either a signed declaration or time

records were available;

22. For the random sample the time records were signed by the employee and

the action manager/line manager, at least monthly.

23. Working time claimed for the action occurred in the periods claimed;

24. No more hours were claimed than the number productive hours used to

calculate the hourly personnel rates;

25. There is proof that the Beneficiary has checked that working time has not

been claimed twice, that it is consistent with absence records and the

number of productive hours per year, and that no working time has been

claimed outside the action period.

26. Working time claimed is consistent with that on record at the human-

resources department.

[official name of the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]]

[official name of the Auditor]

[name and title of authorised representative] [name and title of authorised representative]


<Signature of the [Beneficiary] [Linked Third Party]> <Signature of the Auditor>


Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111

This document is digitally sealed. The digital sealing mechanism uniquely binds the

document to the modules of the Participant Portal of the European Commission, to the

transaction for which it was generated and ensures its integrity and authenticity.

Any attempt to modify the content will lead to a breach of the electronic seal, which can

be verified at any time by clicking on the digital seal validation symbol.

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL RESEARCH & INNOVATION EUROPEAN ... · Grant Agreement number: 777431 — XLS...

Documents

Transcript of DIRECTORATE-GENERAL RESEARCH & INNOVATION EUROPEAN ... · Grant Agreement number: 777431 — XLS...